The Nephilim

philologos

This is just a simple question, what are the Nephilim? They are commented on from Genesis 6:2-4, they are called "the sons of God", and they are distinguished from the "daughters of humans". I'd really appreciate it if someone could give me their thoughts on the issue, and I would like this thread to be dealt with in a Christian spirit.

PDN

My own opinion is that it refers to the descendants of Seth intermarrying with the descendants of Cain - but I know others think differently.

JimiTime

I was always under the impression that they were the offspring of angels who had taken human form and taken human women. Haven't really done a heck of alot on the topic, but that is my understanding.

J C

THEY are still amongst us!!!!:eek::D

Soul Winner

I believe they were lower rank angels who helped Enoch build the Great Pyramid in Giza in Egypt and just like most builders they got horny and decided to take to themselves daughters of men and mate with them. The product of this union became the giants in the land who became so evil that they corrupted mankind and God had to destroy them from the face of the earth with a flood. I also believe it was these who taught mankind witchcraft and sorcery. I believe that the 'pneumatica' that Paul spoke of in Ephesians 6 are the disembodied spirits of these giants. Far out I know but heck so is the Resurrection

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

I believe they were lower rank angels who helped Enoch build the Great Pyramid in Giza in Egypt and just like most builders they got horny [...] Far out I know [...]

You've either been reading Gene Scott again, or you spent the evening in with a bottle of Jack Daniels.

Which one was it?

Zombrex

The Giza pyramid was build by angels?

Is that common Christian belief?

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Is that common Christian belief?

No, hence why Soul Winner said it was "far out".

dvpower

Soul Winner wrote: »

Far out I know but heck so is the Resurrection

Jakkass wrote: »

No, hence why Soul Winner said it was "far out".

... like the Resurrection?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

No, hence why Soul Winner said it was "far out".

I never thought that was a reason for something to be not considered common Christians believe :pac:

[EDIT]Lol, dvpower beat me to it[/EDIT]

philologos

dvpower wrote: »

... like the Resurrection?

Here is the difference:
Angels building the pyramids: Not codified in the Biblical text or in Christian belief.
Resurrection: Codified, and documented in the Biblical text several times, and also in Christian belief.

If the Resurrection did not happen, there would be very little point in Christian faith (1 Corinthians 15:14).

Christianity is about your former self dying, and becoming a new creation through Christ. (Romans 6, 2 Corinthians 5). If Jesus was not crucified, and if Jesus was not Resurrected this message would have very little significance in reality.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Here is the difference:
Angels building the pyramids: Not codified in the Biblical text or in Christian belief.
Resurrection: Codified, and documented in the Biblical text several times, and also in Christian belief.

Perhaps we should ask Soul Winner where he got the idea from if it wasn't from the Bible

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

Perhaps we should ask Soul Winner where he got the idea from if it wasn't from the Bible

I'm putting a tenner on this being one of Gene Scott's. Or a bottle of Jack Daniels.

But I suspect the former.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

I'm putting a tenner on this being one of Gene Scott's. Or a bottle of Jack Daniels.

But I suspect the former.

I suspect it came from Gene Scott, but maybe after Dr Scott had downed a few Jack Daniels.

Genghiz Cohen

Youtuber Gorilla119 is always on about these guys, and the freemasons. And how Satan is on his way back from Nibiru. This sort of thing generally makes me cringe with the tin-foil-hat sort of things people say along with them.

toiletduck

As an avid viewer of conspiracy theory videos (I don't subscribe to them), there is a fairly large number of them dealing with "re-interpreting" the Bible. The Nephilim are alien-human hybrids they say. If you have an interest in this area or are looking for a good laugh (or both) check out Michael Tsarions take on it all. It has everything, aliens, the Bible, interstellar war, movie posters trying to tell us about the 'secret past'... :pac:

Seoid

The Nephilim are the children (supposedly giants) of the 'sons of God' and the 'daughters of men' but the phrase 'sons of God' is unclear - it can mean angels (or similar) or it can mean anybody who follows God.

JimiTime wrote: »

I was always under the impression that they were the offspring of angels who had taken human form and taken human women. Haven't really done a heck of alot on the topic, but that is my understanding.

This story is told more fully in the book of Enoch (written in the time between the Old and New Testaments) and Jubillees (2nd Century BC) According to the book of Enoch, the fallen angels not just mated with 'daughters of men' but they also taught humanity about nake-up/cosmetics, astrology, magic etc.
This is all Jewish mythology and Gen 6:1-4 seems to be a VERY condensed version. It would explain why they were thought to be giants and known to be the heroes of old.

PDN wrote: »

My own opinion is that it refers to the descendants of Seth intermarrying with the descendants of Cain - but I know others think differently.

I have heard this interpretation before and with a modern, non-mythical (scientific) mindset it certainly makes more sense. It's also an old interpretation and described in early Jewish and Christian writings but it seems to me to be an interpretation whereas the other feels to me to be more natural with the text and more likely to have been what the Israelites at the time of writing believed...

I don't know what the truth about them is but I have so many other questions about the bible that this one doesn't concern me too much.

pts

toiletduck wrote: »

As an avid viewer of conspiracy theory videos (I don't subscribe to them), there is a fairly large number of them dealing with "re-interpreting" the Bible. The Nephilim are alien-human hybrids they say. If you have an interest in this area or are looking for a good laugh (or both) check out Michael Tsarions take on it all. It has everything, aliens, the Bible, interstellar war, movie posters trying to tell us about the 'secret past'... :pac:

Michael Tsarions, are you sure you're not talking about L. Ron Hubbard

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Perhaps we should ask Soul Winner where he got the idea from if it wasn't from the Bible

“Enoch walked with God and was not for God took him.” He is the only one in the Genesis genealogies where his death is not recorded. I believe God took him for a reason and that that reason was to build the Great Pyramid in Giza in order for it to stand as sign and a witness to the Lord as per Isaiah 19:19-20. In the Hebrew language the letters also have numerical value. It is very interesting that when you add the numerical value of these two verses in Isaiah 19 that they come to the same value as the height of the Great Pyramid in Pyramid inches. Coincidence?

Anyway I know that this belief is not generally accepted by Christendom and is very speculative, but as a believer in angels as real beings I fail to see where the big leap of faith is in believing that angels could have helped Enoch build this monument that has defied the centuries and exhausted the lives of many a scientist and no explanation has arisen that adequately explains who built it, why they built it and how they built it. At conservative estimates it is over 5 thousand years old?

How did people back then know how to build something of this magnitude without the aid of modern day instruments? And to align it up with true north even more precisely than the Paris observatory? It is located in the only spot on earth where the longest land meridian and land parallel meet, dividing the land mass of the earth in four equal parts? How did they know how to do this without the aid or modern day instruments or was that an accident? There are 3 billion other places on earth where it could have been built but it just so happens that they build it on this spot. All I'm saying is that there a lot of unanswered questions regarding this monument which beg explanation so until we can adequately rule out supernatural involvement then I'm entitled to speculate.

Oh and before anyone says that it was a tomb built to preserve the body of a Pharaoh, it wasn't, the fact that there are airshafts in this particular monument rule that theory out going out the gate. You don't put airshafts in tombs, tombs are to be sealed airtight, so whatever this structure is, it is not a tomb. If the Great Pyramid is not the altar in the land of Egypt spoken of by Isaiah then what is it?

Facts about the Great Pyramid here

Good link about Enoch and the Watchers here

Good documentary about the Great Pyramid here:

It’s part 1 of 7 but all seven are on Youtube . It touches on just a few of the amazing features incorporated in the Great Pyramid. You might want to drown out some of the overly dramatic accompanying music though and just take in the facts.

Oh and PDN and Rob, kindly refrain from inflammatory comments toward the late Dr. Gene Scott. He was my Pastor and Teacher until God took him home in 2005. He was an ordained minister and was respected as a Historic Churchman who faithfully taught God’s Word for over 50 years. I understand that you might not accept his beliefs or conclusions in relation to many things but that is not a reason to break the charter rules by making ad hominem remarks which are only intended to inflame rather than debate.

Thanks
SW

PDN

Soul Winner wrote: »

Oh and PDN and Rob, kindly refrain from inflammatory comments toward the late Dr. Gene Scott. He was my Pastor and Teacher until God took him home in 2005. He was an ordained minister and was respected as a Historic Churchman who faithfully taught God’s Word for over 50 years. I understand that you might not accept his beliefs or conclusions in relation to many things but that is not a reason to break the charter rules by making ad hominem remarks which are only intended to inflame rather than debate.

Thanks
SW

I hardly think that the reference to him downing a few Jack Daniels are inflammatory. Wasn't he famous for sometimes appearing on his TV shows with a cigar and a glass of whiskey?

Soul Winner

PDN wrote: »

I hardly think that the reference to him downing a few Jack Daniels are inflammatory. Wasn't he famous for sometimes appearing on his TV shows with a cigar and a glass of whiskey?

He oft smoked a cigar, and a pipe, he would even light them with novelty hand gun and grenade lighters, he wore many silly hats from time to time, he owned the flower pot which the famous British preacher G Campbell Morgan used to stub out his cigar before he would take to the pulpit to preach one of his famous sermons which are now preserved in a set of volumes entitled "The Westminster Pulpit", but not once did I ever see Dr Gene Scott drinking whiskey on either his nightly Festival of Faith program or in Church on Sunday morning, so I'm not sure where you got that from. The only alcohol he would partake of on TV was the thimble measure of wine he would use when he taught on the real meaning of the elements at the Table of the Lord, the bread and the wine.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

PDN and Rob, kindly refrain from inflammatory comments toward the late Dr. Gene Scott. [...] He oft smoked a cigar, and a pipe, he would even light them with novelty hand gun and grenade lighters [...]

Well, firstly, I wasn't making "inflammatory comments" about Scott (and neither was PDN) -- the inflammation is something you've constructed yourself. And more to the point, if Scott wanted to be taken seriously, then he should probably have behaved more like an intellectual and bawled fewer obscenities.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

Well, firstly, I wasn't making "inflammatory comments" about Scott (and neither was PDN) -- the inflammation is something you've constructed yourself. And more to the point, if Scott wanted to be taken seriously, then he should probably have behaved more like an intellectual and bawled fewer obscenities.

Now hold on a cotton pickin minute there Rob. Dr William Lane Craig is one of the most respected intellectual Christian thinkers/speakers in the world today and you said of him in a past post in the A&A forum that only Alistair Mc Graith makes you cringe more (or something to that affect). So which is it? In your opinion should Christian leaders be more like Dr Gene Scott who held a PhD in Philosophies of Education from Stanford University, who shoves a cigar in the face of the fundamentalist legalist Christian leaders who are constantly judging everyone or more like Dr William Lane Craig who is probably the most polite, courteous, mild mannered intellectual Christian speaker of our day? Seems to me that no matter what way a Christian leader will behave he will never get respect from you anyway. Therefore what I said about your comments stands, they were inflammatory not tending toward a serious debate.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

In your opinion should Christian leaders be more like Dr Gene Scott who held a PhD in Philosophies of Education from Stanford University, who shoves a cigar in the face of the fundamentalist legalist Christian leaders who are constantly judging everyone or more like Dr William Lane Craig who is probably the most polite, courteous, mild mannered intellectual Christian speaker of our day?

As you ask, I would like christian leaders to be decent, honorable, intelligent people who are honest enough to admit the epistemological and philosophical problems with their own religious systems, instead of pretending they're not there (as does WL Craig and the hopelessly confused McGrath), or lying about their opponents, their ideas and motives (as does the diploma-mill-doctor Ken Ham), or resorting to an endless line in tedious obscenities (as does, well, I won't name him...).

Soul Winner wrote: »

Seems to me that no matter what way a Christian leader will behave he will never get respect from you anyway.

Richard Harries, the former bishop of Oxford, seems a decent chap and I'll happily buy him a beer if he ever shows up thirsty in Dublin.

pts

I find Father George Coyne and Rev. Tom Honey interesting. They seem to relax some assumptions around religion a bit. They also admit that there are many things we don't know and that we don't need to make things up just because we don't understand them now.

philologos

pts wrote: »

I find Father George Coyne and Rev. Tom Honey interesting. They seem to relax some assumptions around religion a bit. They also admit that there are many things we don't know and that we don't need to make things up just because we don't understand them now.

Who doesn't accept that there are many things we don't know? I don't know any Christian who has claimed to know everything about our existence.

pts

Jakkass wrote: »

Who doesn't accept that there are many things we don't know? I don't know any Christian who has claimed to know everything about our existence.

Come on Jakkass, I expected better from you. You seem to be building a straw man argument. I never said anything about all Christians, or anything to that effect.

Most (just to emphasise that I said most, not all) clergy argue from authority. They interpret their respective holy book without acknowledging doing so, but sell their opinion not as "my itnerpetation of this book", but "the word of God".

I just think it is refreshing to see clergy who are open about how little we know about certain things.

philologos

pts wrote: »

Come on Jakkass, I expected better from you. You seem to be building a straw man argument. I never said anything about all Christians, or anything to that effect.

Most (just to emphasise that I said most, not all) clergy argue from authority. They interpret their respective holy book without acknowledging doing so, but sell their opinion not as "my itnerpetation of this book", but "the word of God".

I just think it is refreshing to see clergy who are open about how little we know about certain things.

I don't consider the Bible to be mere opinion, but divine revelation. You are correct that many people in certain churches are taking a more liberal take on the Bible.

However, I'd agree with Allister McGraths take on the whole matter more so. Let me quote from one of his books infact:

In Scripture, Calvin argues, God reveals Himself verbally, in the form of words. But how can words do justice to the majesty of God. How can words span the enormous gulf between God and sinful humanity? Calvin develops what is usually referred to as the principle of accomodation. The term accomodation should here be understood to mean "adjusting or adapting to meet the needs of the situation."

.....

Similarly, Calvin argues, God has to come down to our level if he is to reveal Himself to us. God scales Himself down to meet our abilities. Just as a human mother or nurse stoops down to reach her child, by using a different way of speaking than appropriate for an adult, so God stoops down to come to our level.

.....

Calvin argues that God is obliged to reveal Himself in this pictoral manner due to our limited intellects.

Extracts from Intellectuals Don't Need God & Other Common Myths: Building Bridges To Faith through Apologetics page 20.

I think this is reasonable. We don't know much about God, because God has put His message to us in human terms. What we do know is seen to be true by most people who would take a more conservative view of the Scriptures, but there is much much much more beyond our understanding that we will never know.

I would ask everyone to try and stick to the topic of the Nephilim though please. I'm still curious about this topic, and I asked specifically that this thread be taken in a Christian spirit.

Zombrex

pts wrote: »

Most (just to emphasise that I said most, not all) clergy argue from authority. They interpret their respective holy book without acknowledging doing so, but sell their opinion not as "my itnerpetation of this book", but "the word of God".

Sounds like the Creationist thread TBH. Jakkass you might want to spend some there there if you think some Christians don't behave like this. Or look at a sight such as AnswersInGenesis

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Sounds like the Creationist thread TBH. Jakkass you might want to spend some there there if you think some Christians don't behave like this. Or look at a sight such as AnswersInGenesis

You know as well as I do that this thread wasn't started to discuss either Answers In Genesis or Creationism, rather it was for people to discuss possible views of the Nephilim.

However, I do not see any issue with people recognising Biblical authority within church.

pts

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't consider the Bible to be mere opinion, but divine revelation. You are correct that many people in certain churches are taking a more liberal take on the Bible.

Which is fair enough, but I'm actually not talking about the Bible. If, for arguments sake we said that the Bible came about through divine revelation, and was unaltered to this day, I would still argue that it can be read and interpreted in many ways. As it can be read in many ways one has to, as a religious leader, decide how to interpret it. I guess what I don't like is when religious leaders interpret the Bible, but don't disclose that it is their opinion on how the Bible should be read, but brand it as "the word of God" instead.

Jakkass wrote: »

However, I'd agree with Allister McGraths take on the whole matter more so. Let me quote from one of his books infact:



Extracts from Intellectuals Don't Need God & Other Common Myths: Building Bridges To Faith through Apologetics page 20.

I think this is reasonable. We don't know much about God, because God has put His message to us in human terms. What we do know is seen to be true by most people who would take a more conservative view of the Scriptures, but there is much much much more beyond our understanding that we will never know.

That is an interesting take on it, basically God has "dumbed it down" a bit for us. Going back to my previous point though, holy books are so ambiguous that they can justify or be seemed to command anything the interpreter wants. Which in my opinion is a very dangerous thing.

Jakkass wrote: »

I would ask everyone to try and stick to the topic of the Nephilim though please. I'm still curious about this topic, and I asked specifically that this thread be taken in a Christian spirit.

Which is fair enough, I'll leave you to it so. Apologies for the derailment, funny how quickly a thread can "evolve" from one thing to another

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't know any Christian who has claimed to know everything about our existence.

And with due deference to the fine inhabitants of this excellent forum, it seems that very few indeed doubt that they have fully accurate grasp of what's really important about our existence.

studiorat

Good to dee this old chestnut back again, a particular favorite of mine...

Philostratus the greek writer stated, that it was logical to accept that "giants once existed, because their remains could be seen all around the world." Philostratus wrote this concerning the "discovery" of the body of the greek hero Ajax, of whom it was believed was a giant. As were all great heros of the day, apparently Fionn McCool was a lofty 52 feet tall!!!

Oddly enough in the very areas that the giant myths arose would also be found fossils of mammoths and other large mammals. Just as the discovery of sea shells and fish fossils on top of mountains would indicate a great flood. So too would the mistaken discovery of giant human fossils also lead to theories of giants roaming the ancient world.

The first fossil hunters by Adrienne Mayor is an excellent read on what the early greeks and romans thought when they discovered fossils. They believed according to Mayor that is was a magical curse affair that bones should be turned to stone for example...

PDN

studiorat wrote: »

Oddly enough in the very areas that the giant myths arose would also be found fossils of mammoths and other large mammals. Just as the discovery of sea shells and fish fossils on top of mountains would indicate a great flood. So too would the mistaken discovery of giant human fossils also lead to theories of giants roaming the ancient world.

I seem to remember reading somewhere, many moons ago, that fossils indicate that human beings have grown much bigger over the centuries and animals have got smaller. You can see this over a shorter time frame by visiting somewhere like Les Invalides in Paris and looking at the fine collection of suits of armour from various centuries. Most of them look like they were worn by munchkins and lepracauns.

prinz

PDN wrote: »

I seem to remember reading somewhere, many moons ago, that fossils indicate that human beings have grown much bigger over the centuries and animals have got smaller. You can see this over a shorter time frame by visiting somewhere like Les Invalides in Paris and looking at the fine collection of suits of armour from various centuries. Most of them look like they were worn by munchkins and lepracauns.

+1, I was struck by the same thing a few months ago when I was there. Also the dresses in the Royal Apartments at the Louvre, they're tiny :eek: It hits you immediately when you get close to them.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

fossils indicate that human beings have grown much bigger over the centuries and animals have got smaller. You can see this over a shorter time frame by visiting somewhere like Les Invalides in Paris and looking at the fine collection of suits of armour from various centuries.

Most of the "growth" in humans in the last few centuries is believed to be the result of diets which are far more nutritious than they were years ago.

Unless you happen to be a North Korean of course, where, AFAIR, you're likely to be 10-20kg lighter and 8-12cm shorter than your better-fed, not to say chubbier, eternal friends to the south of the 38th Parallel.

Flamed Diving

Wicknight wrote: »

The Giza pyramid was build by angels?

Is that common Christian belief?

I'd say anything is up for grabs, these days.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

If the Resurrection did not happen, there would be very little point in Christian faith (1 Corinthians 15:14).

Christianity is about your former self dying, and becoming a new creation through Christ. (Romans 6, 2 Corinthians 5). If Jesus was not crucified, and if Jesus was not Resurrected this message would have very little significance in reality.

So Jesus' message is reduced to a mere parlour trick?

Do you not find that cheapens all of the good stuff Jesus had to say?

Fanny Cradock

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So Jesus' message is reduced to a mere parlour trick?

Do you not find that cheapens all of the good stuff Jesus had to say?

Has the resurrection been disproved? Or could it be that you are jumping the gun there a bit?

The resurrection is regarded as the single most important aspect of Christianity. If it did happen then simply put it ushers in a different way of existing for everything. Death has been conquered, so to has sin. If the resurrection didn't happen then it's fairly huge porky that has managed to fool a massive proportion of humanity. Whatever side you come down on, I don't see how the resurrection could be considered a mere parlour trick.

PDN

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So Jesus' message is reduced to a mere parlour trick?

Do you not find that cheapens all of the good stuff Jesus had to say?

Not in the slightest. Jesus' teaching was not a bunch of abstract do-gooding. It was based on His own person. The resurrection demonstrated that He was who He said He was. If there was no resurrection then His teaching is irrelevant.

Flamed Diving

PDN wrote: »

If there was no resurrection then His teaching is irrelevant.

That's just sad.

Flamed Diving

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Has the resurrection been disproved? Or could it be that you are jumping the gun there a bit?

The resurrection is regarded as the single most important aspect of Christianity. If it did happen then simply put it ushers in a different way of existing for everything. Death has been conquered, so to has sin. If the resurrection didn't happen then it's fairly huge porky that has managed to fool a massive proportion of humanity. Whatever side you come down on, I don't see how the resurrection could be considered a mere parlour trick.

I'm actually working off the assumption that this event happened, so I don't really know what you are talking about. Take some time to review.

Anyway:

He is God. Rising into the sky is a fairly easy trick for a god to pull. What impresses me about Jesus were some of his teachings, which were fairly modern for his specific region, at the time (and today, so quick is that regions gallop to modernity...). So to say that his words and teachings would be meaningless otherwise is a bit cheap. I genuinely find that a bit pathetic.

JimiTime

Flamed Diving wrote: »

That's just sad.

Only to the foolish.

Flamed Diving

JimiTime wrote: »

Only to the foolish.

So, you are calling me a fool. And I suppose, as usual, nothing will be done about that veiled dig.

Anyway, you reduce your saviours message to a cheap trick. His teachings alone should be enough, not the celestial equivalent of pulling rabbits out of hats. Some faith...

philologos

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So, you are calling me a fool. And I suppose, as usual, nothing will be done about that veiled dig.

Anyway, you reduce your saviours message to a cheap trick. His teachings alone should be enough, not the celestial equivalent of pulling rabbits out of hats. Some faith...

Why would Jesus be our Saviour, if He did not save us by any means? Did you ever think about that?

Jesus' message is incredibly valuable. The mere fact that we have been forgiven to be able to follow God's commandments without any blemish against us is also incredibly valuable.

Without the Resurrection, we are still guilty. With it, we are saved and have the freedom to follow Christ's commandments.

prinz

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Anyway, you reduce your saviours message to a cheap trick. His teachings alone should be enough, not the celestial equivalent of pulling rabbits out of hats. Some faith...

The ressurection was central to what was being taught. Without it the teachings of Jesus would probably never have been deseminated
across space and time. It was the ressurection which confirmed to those of the time that Jesus had fulfilled his promise, fulfilled the Old Testament and fulfilled his role as the Messiah.

An example would be to remove the end of apartheid from the story of Nelson Mandela. Now obviously what he said all during his life were great teachings etc., but it was what it resulted in and what it culminated in which made Mandela a great man, and the figure he became as a symbol.

I've never seen Paul Daniels do it.

Flamed Diving

But aren't we all sinners anyway? What's the difference?

JimiTime

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So, you are calling me a fool. And I suppose, as usual, nothing will be done about that veiled dig.

There is no veiling of my thoughts, i'm always as open as I can be. I have honestly expressed how I feel about your flippant comments. I certainly think that it is foolish. Personally I think it is you that are veiling some bitterness behind the guise of honest enquiry. But maybe thats just me.

Anyway, you reduce your saviours message to a cheap trick. His teachings alone should be enough, not the celestial equivalent of pulling rabbits out of hats. Some faith...

See above.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Jesus' teaching was not a bunch of abstract do-gooding. [...] If there was no resurrection then His teaching is irrelevant.

Do I understand you correctly that you believe that Jesus' only contribution to humanity was to die in a deal that he (as Jesus) made with himself (as god)? And if this didn't happen, that all of his rules regarding how people should live are irrelevant?

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Do I understand you correctly that you believe that Jesus' only contribution to humanity was to die in a deal that he (as Jesus) made with himself (as god)? And if this didn't happen, that all of his rules regarding how people should live are irrelevant?

Well think about it. Firstly, no-one has said that Jesus dieing was his 'only' contribution to mankind. However, If the 'resurrection' didn't happen, no salvation has been offered. He will have been a liar, or at least those who recorded his life are liars, either way being pretty unreliable. All he would have been is a guy with some great Philosophies, but also some barmy ones. Lets face it, without the resurrection, 'turn the other cheek' is for mugs. Why wouldn't I seek vengeance if God didn't exist? His life gave his death value, but its all pretty irrelevant if the resurection is false. His authority is key to it all. The resurrection shows his authority.

MrPudding

JimiTime wrote: »

Lets face it, without the resurrection, 'turn the other cheek' is for mugs. Why wouldn't I seek vengeance if God didn't exist?

What does god's existence have to do with whether or not one should seek vengeance?

MrP