Weird Email From Pseudo Non Christian Trying To Break My Mom Down

[KnightofChrist]

[quote]Yes, there are several references to the devil/Satan in the Bible. But many of the passages that people assume are about the
devil/Satan never really say that. For example, I defy you to go to the Garden of Eden story and show me where it says that Satan was there. It doesn't. It says "the serpent." Over the years, theologians and artists have interpreted the reference to the
serpent to be Satan. [/quote]"The Serpent" is one of many names for Satan. This person lacks biblical understanding. The Serpent is Satan and Genesis refers to it as Satan with this passage.

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." Satan will be defeated by Christ, and it has be foretold since the beginning.

That same serpent is referred to in Revelation

"And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him."



[quote]It has entered popular interpretation, but that's not what the Bible actually says. As for Lucifer, the "name"
is used one time — that's it — in the entire Bible, a small passage in the book of Isaiah. But sometimes the Hebrew word is translated as "morning star." Many of our notions about Satan as a fallen angel simply cannot be found in the Bible. Yes, the book of Job — one of the oldest books of the Bible, according to most biblical scholars — does make mention of Satan having a conversation with God. But if you read the book carefully and not through the eyes of the Judeo-Christian tradition, you will see that the character actually acts as an agent of God, not as an adversary.[/quote]

It is what the bible actually says, it says it repentedly, over and over and over again. Lucifer has many names.

Abaddon (Revelation 9:11)

The Accuser of the Brethren (Revelation 12:10)

The Adversary (I Peter 5:8)

Apollyon (Revelation 9:11)

Beelzebub (Matthew 12:24 Mark 3:22 Luke 11:15)

Belial (II Corinthians 6:15)

the Devil (Matt. 4:1, 5, 9; Eph. 4:27; Rev. 12:9; 20:2)

Dragon (Revelation 12:9 and 20:2)

the Enemy (Matthew 13:39)

Father of All Lies (John 8:44)

god of this world (II Corinthians 4:4)

King of Babylon (Isaiah 14:4)

King of Tyrus (Ezekiel 28:12)

Little Horn (Daniel 7:8)

Lucifer (Isaiah 14:12)

Man of sin (II Thessalonians 2:3)

That Old Serpent (Revelation 12:9 and 20:2)

Power of Darkness (Colossians 1:13)

Prince of the Power of the Air (Ephesians 2:2)

Prince that shall come (Daniel 9:26)

prince of Tyrus (Ezekiel 28:2)

Prince of this world (John 12:31)

Rulers of the darkness of this world (Ephesians 6:12)

Satan (Job 1:6-9; Matt. 4:10)

Serpent (Genesis 3:1; Rev. 12:9)

Son of Perdition (John 17:12; II Thessalonians 2:3)

the Tempter (Matthew 4:3; 1 Thess. 3:5)

the Wicked One (Matthew 13:19)

If he would read the whole bible and not individual verses with the eyes of doubt he would see Satan is named many times in the bible. And he Satan is no friend of God, and is in fact the enemy of God and God's people.


[quote]
The problem is that there is not just one consistent story in the Bible about such matters. Or even about such matters as the
afterlife. The early Hebrews didn't believe in an afterlife, certainly not in the notion of heaven and hell. At most, they believe in a shadowy existence known as Sheol. The notions of heaven and hell as came to be a part of the Judeo-Christian tradition came
about only during and following the Babylonian captivity, where the Jews were exposed to Zoroastrianism, with its dualistic ideas of
heaven and hell. Indeed, many of the notions of good and evil came out of Zoroastrianism. Furthermore, I could show you some obscure passages in the Bible that speak as if there is more than one god and that the Hebrew God (YHWH) is just one of many, albeit the best. I could show you passages where it talks in terms that seem much more like Greek mythology, where the gods have sex with humans and spawn a race of supermen. What's the point? Only this: There is not one consistent story. It's
many stories that over the years have been woven together in different ways and with different interpretations.
[/quote]Tell him to provide this passages. Or this is just opinion. The Old Testament mentions heaven many times, before and after the Babylonian captivity.

Gen.1:1, 11:4, 28:12, - Ex.20:22, - Dt.10:14, 30:12
1K.8:27, - 2Chr.2:6, 6:18, - Nehem.9:6, - Job 15:15, 22:12, 22:14, 26:11, 37:18, 38:33
Psalms 8:3, 11:14, 19:1, 33:6, 50:6, 73:25, 89:6, 102:19,25, 103:11, 104:2, 108:4, 115:6, 139:8, 146:6
Is.34:4, 40:12,22, 51:6, 55:9, 64:1, 65:17, 66:1,22 - Jer.10:2, 23:24, 31:37, Ez.32:7



[quote]You say that you believe that everyone has an emptiness they try to fill but can't until they allow that which is beyond reason to rule
their life (a very Kierkegaardian viewpoint, by the way), that is, until they are ruled by faith. But how do we know that that which
you or anyone else calls "God" truly exists and is not just a wish that we have? Hmmm. I've studied a lot of philosophical discussions
of this, especially what are called arguments for the existence of God. A lot of the arguments were advanced by Catholic theologians, such as St. Anselm (the ontological argument) and St. Thomas Aquinas (the cosmological argument and the teleological argument), as well as by philosophers like Immanuel Kant (the moral argument). Ultimately, the arguments fail. There is one"argument" that doesn't fail — that of experience. It's like the hymn "He Lives" — "You ask me how I know He lives. He lives within my heart." To the person who has experienced such a faith moment, nothing can be more convincing. To the person who hasn't,however, nothing can be sillier. The "argument" from experience is, therefore, both the best and the worst argument.[/quote]

Has he heard the "Argument from Design" put forth by Peter Kreeft? It may fail to "prove" the Christian God, but it does prove a pretty "thick slice of God." Or the argument of first cause? If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing. And every civilization on earth has believe there to be a god. Therefor there is a natural desire for God in every group. Every natural desire has a fulfillment. If I desire food there is food, water there is water, when I desire God, there is God.

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world." — C.S. Lewis



[quote]As for allowing you to base your side of the discussion on something that cannot be founded upon reason or logic, of course I can allow that. However, you will realize that there will be times when I challenge that and times when we will come to an impasse because you accept it on faith and I reject it for lack of reason and logic. And believe me, I understand your side a lot more than you might think I do[/quote]

Belief in God is not counter to logic or reason, to say other wise is to insult and make illogical and unreasonable assumptions. It is very logical and very reasonable to believe and argue for the exists of God, since His exist not non-exist affects has a great effect on us all, if ther is no God, why not be evil?

Rev I suggest you read the five arguments of the exist of God by [url="http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio.htm"]Peter Kreeft[/url]. And use them to help your mother show the logical and reasons proofs of God. There are both audio, and writings by Mr. Kreeft.

[KnightofChrist]

Hell in the OT...

[url="http://biblia.com/heaven/hell-names.htm"]Source[/url].

"Sheol:

The meaning of Sheol (in Hebrew) moves between the ideas of the grave, the underworld, the state of death, and the state of punishment.

Sheol was below the surface of the earth (Ezk. 31:15, 17; Ps. 86:13), a place of dust (Jb. 17:16), darkness (Jb. 10:21), silence (Ps. 94:17) and forgetfulness (Ps. 88:12). Sometimes the distinctions of earthly life are pictured as continuing in Sheol (Is. 14:9; Ezk. 32:27), but always it is a place of weakness and joylessness.

In some passages Sheol has a punitive aspect (e.g. Ps. 49:13-14) and premature committal to Sheol is a form of judgment. In a real sense to be in Sheol is to be cut off from the hand of God (Ps. 88:3-5).

A place of punishment within Sheol have been seen by some in words such as Õab_addoÆn, `destruction' (Jb. 31:12; 26:6; 28:22; Ps.88:11; Pr. 15:11; 27:20), sûah\at_, `pit' and perhaps sometimes also `corruption' (E. F. Sutcliffe, The Old Testament and the Future Life, 1946, pp. 39f.; Jb. 33:24; Ps. 16:10; Ezk. 28:8, etc.) and boÆr, `pit' (Ps. 30:3; Ezk. 31:14),

However, God is sometimes present in Sheol (Ps. 139:8) and able to deliver from it (Ps. 16:10).

So, there are four theological meanings of the term Sheol:

1- Hell in the strict sense, or the place of punishment for the damned, be they demons or men;

2- The limbo of the Fathers (limbus patrum), in which the souls of the just who died before Christ awaited their admission to heaven; for in the meantime heaven was closed against them in punishment for the sin of Adam: Abrham, Isaac, Jacob and all the prophets ((Matt.8:11, Lk.13:28).

3- The limbo of infants (limbus parvulorum), where those who die in original sin alone, and without personal mortal sin.

4- Purgatory, where the just, who die in venial sin or who still owe a debt of temporal punishment for sin, are cleansed by suffering before their admission to heaven.

The derivation of sheol is generally supposed to come from the Hebrew root meaning, "to be sunk in, to be hollow"; accordingly it denotes a cave or a place under the earth. In the Old Testament (Sept. hades; Vulg. infernus) sheol is used quite in general to designate the kingdom of the dead, of the good as well as of the bad (Gen.37:35, Num.16:30); it means Hell in the strict sense of the term, as well as the limbo of the Fathers.

But, as the limbo of the Fathers ended at the time of Christ's Ascension, hades (Vulg. infernus) in the New Testament always designates the Hell of the damned. Since Christ's Ascension the just no longer go down to the lower world, but they dwell in Heaven (2Cor.5:1)."

[KnightofChrist]

This also maybe useful?


[url="http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_afterlife.htm"]Ask Rabbi Simmons[/url]
Afterlife in Judaism

Question

What do Jews believe about the afterlife? Do we have spirits? How will we be resurrected when the messiah comes? Is there a heaven and hell? What is hell like?

Answer

The creation of man testifies to the eternal life of the soul. The Torah says, "And the Almighty formed the man of dust from the ground, and He blew into his nostrils the SOUL of life" (Genesis 2:7). On this verse, the Zohar states that "one who blows, blows from within himself," indicating that the soul is actually part of God's essence. Since God's essence is completely spiritual and non-physical, it is impossible that the soul should die. (The commentator Chizkuni says this why the verse calls it "soul of LIFE.")

That's what King Solomon meant when he wrote, "The dust will return to the ground as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it." (Ecclesiastes 12:17)

For anyone who believes in a just and caring God, the existence of an afterlife makes logical sense. Could it be this world is just a playground without consequences? Did Hitler get away with killing 6,000,000 Jews? No. There is obviously a place where good people receive reward and bad people get punished. (see Maimonides' 13 Principles of Faith)

The question of "why do bad things happen to good people" has a lot to do with how we look at existence. The way we usually perceive things is like this: A "good life" means that I make a comfortable living, I enjoy good health, and then I die peacefully at age 80. That's a good life. Anything else is "bad."

In a limited sense, that's true. But if we have a soul and there is such a thing as eternity, then that changes the picture entirely. Eighty years in the face of eternity is not such a big deal.

From Judaism's perspective, our eternal soul is as real as our thumb. This is the world of doing, and the "world to come" is where we experience the eternal reality of whatever we've become. Do you think after being responsible for the torture and deaths of millions of people, that Hitler could really "end it all" by just swallowing some poison? No. Ultimate justice is found in another dimension.

But the concept goes much deeper. From an eternal view, if the ultimate pleasure we're going after is transcendence - the eternal relationship with the Almighty Himself, then who would be luckier: Someone who lives an easy life with little connection to God, or someone who is born handicapped, and despite the challenges, develops a connection with God. Who would be "luckier" in terms of eternal existence? All I'm trying to point out is that the rules of life start to look different from the point of view of eternity, as opposed to just the 70 or 80 years we have on earth.

So what is the afterlife exactly?

When a person dies and goes to heaven, the judgment is not arbitrary and externally imposed. Rather, the soul is shown two videotapes. The first video is called "This is Your Life!" Every decision and every thought, all the good deeds, and the embarrassing things a person did in private is all replayed without any embellishments. It's fully bared for all to see. That's why the next world is called Olam HaEmet - "the World of Truth," because there we clearly recognize our personal strengths and shortcomings, and the true purpose of life. In short, Hell is not the Devil with a pitchfork stoking the fires.

The second video depicts how a person's life "could have been..." if the right choices had been made, if the opportunities were seized, if the potential was actualized. This video - the pain of squandered potential - is much more difficult to bear. But at the same time it purifies the soul as well. The pain creates regret which removes the barriers and enables the soul to completely connect to God.

Not all souls merit Gehenom. It is for people who have done good but need to be purified. A handful of people are too evil for Gehenom, and they are punished eternally. Pharaoh is one example.

So what about "heaven?"

Heaven is where the soul experiences the greatest possible pleasure - the feeling of closeness to God. Of course not all souls experience that to the same degree. It's like going to a symphony concert. Some tickets are front-row center; others are back in the bleachers. Where your seat is located is based on the merit of your good deeds - e.g. giving charity, caring for others, prayer.

A second factor in heaven is your understanding of the environment. Just like at the concert, a person can have great seats but no appreciation of what's going on. If a person spends their lifetime elevating the soul and becoming sensitive to spiritual realities (through Torah study), then that will translate into unimaginable pleasure in heaven. On the other hand, if life was all about pizza and football, well, that can get pretty boring for eternity.

The existence of the afterlife is not stated explicitly in the Torah itself, because as human beings we have to focus on our task in this world. Though awareness of an eternal reward can also be an effective motivator.

For further study, see Maimonides' Foundations of the Torah, "The Way of God" by Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzatto, and the commentary of Nachmanides to Leviticus 18:29.

May the Almighty grant you blessings, success - and eternal life!

Sources:
* Zohar, Mishpatim, Exodus 1:1
* AriZal - Sha'ar Hagilgulim
With blessings from Jerusalem,

Rabbi Shraga Simmons

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I don't think much proof of Satan is necessary. Jesus said He say him fall like lightning. St. Peter said to stay sober and resist him. Good enough for me. It's good that Scriptures only mention him as a side matter. If he got too much credit, it would cease to be helpful for us, and start to be helpful for him.

God bless,

Micah

[thessalonian]

Yes, the devil prowls the world like a roaring lion seeking to devour souls. This guy can keep thinking that's a fictional passage if he chooses I suppose. It's a pretty ruff chance to take if he is wrong and convinces others that he is right.

[Katholikos]

[quote]Furthermore, I could show you some obscure passages in the Bible that speak as if there is more than one god and that the Hebrew God (YHWH) is just one of many, albeit the best. I could show you passages where it talks in terms that seem much more like Greek mythology, where the gods have sex with humans and spawn a race of supermen. What's the point? Only this: There is not one consistent story. It's
many stories that over the years have been woven together in different ways and with different interpretations.[/quote]Judaism is based on Oral Tradition, not the writings we now call the Old Testament. Jews call themselves "The People of the Book" but the book is only part of it. The Talmud, for example, is a collection of Jewish law and tradition which is well studied by Jews. Judaism was about a thousand years old when their scriptures began to be written -- around the time of David, 1,000 B.C. -- and another thousand years passed before the last of the OT writings was completed.

The Pentateuch (first 5 books, aka the Torah) as we now have it has many sources that were eventually incorporated into one book. Most scholars identify four main sources: JEDP. The J tradition is Yahwist, and refers to the Divine Name as Yahweh (YHWH). The E tradition is Elohist and uses the name Elohim, the Hebrew word for 'God' or 'gods.' The D is the Deuteronomist, thought to be the original author of Deuteronomy. The P is Priestly, thought to have been an editor who revised all five books to reflect the concerns of the Jerusalem priesthood after the Babylonian Exile.

My point is, one does not read the OT to learn how to be or become a Jew and what Jews beleive. Your adversary is right -- there is not one consistent story. So what? The writing we call the OT is "the literary record of the spiritual life of ancient Israel" (RSV, Intro to the OT). It tells of the successes and failures and experiences of the people chosen to obey God and bring monotheism to the world. It is not a textbook in Judaism.

Perhaps I'm telling you what you already know, but I hope this is helpful in combating your adversary's ignorant folly.

Likos

[Justin (Wiccan)]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1242125' date='Apr 13 2007, 09:45 PM']Judaism is based on Oral Tradition, not the writings we now call the Old Testament.[/quote]

Eh ... that's not entirely correct. Yes, Judaism relies heavily on the oral tradition, but they also rely on the Tanakh, and on the decisions of former Rabbis of note. It's similar to Catholics and the combination of Received Tradition, the Bible, and the Magisterium, save that in Judaism the "Magisterium" is not centralized.

[Jaime]

Revprod


This guy is essentially using "Dan Brown" research. While many of his facts are correct, he's making one assumption that is classically flawed.

Does the OT refer to multiple gods? Absolutely!! The Israelites didn't move from polytheistic culture (many gods) to a monotheistic culture (One God) until Exodus

Was Satan mentioned in the Garden? No and I'll take it one step further than he does, Satan is never portrayed as a bad guy in all of the OT. He's not understood to be evil until NT.


Are there OT stories that resemble greek myths? Sure! There are some that resemble Myan myths too!!

Does any of this give cause to lose one's belief in God? Nope.


But here's the deal. God reveals himself bit by bit throughout OT. God doesn't reveal his fullness until his people have grown and learned as a society. So coming to this guys flaw, he is working from the premise that if God is unchanging, our understanding of his nature should have been full and complete from the beginning. And that's goofy.

We develop personally from fetus to baby, baby to child, child to teen, teen to adult. As we grow, our understanding grows. It is the same as a society. We see that culturally all the time. Pretty much everything we do on a daily basis would be considered magic by anyone even 100 years ago. And that's just technology.

How much more patience is needed in gaining a fuller understanding of the Nature of God?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1242834' date='Apr 14 2007, 11:03 AM']Does the OT refer to multiple gods? Absolutely!! The Israelites didn't move from polytheistic culture (many gods) to a monotheistic culture (One God) until Exodus[/quote]

In which way do you believe multiple gods are mentioned in the OT? Does the inspired word of God, hint that these gods exist? Or that these gods are false not to be worshiped and do not exist?

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1242834' date='Apr 14 2007, 11:03 AM']Was Satan mentioned in the Garden? No and I'll take it one step further than he does, Satan is never portrayed as a bad guy in all of the OT. He's not understood to be evil until NT.[/quote]

Perhaps in Liberal Theology but not so in reality. Who then is the serpent in the Garden? A myth? Some other evil being? And while the OT may not have the full story on Satan as is in the NT, there is a pretty big and thick slice of Satan and his evils in the OT, one can not certainly say after actually reading the OT that Satan is not portrayed as evil and opposed to God.

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1242834' date='Apr 14 2007, 11:03 AM']Are there OT stories that resemble greek myths? Sure! There are some that resemble Myan myths too!![/quote]

Resemble yes perhaps, based on, no.

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1242834' date='Apr 14 2007, 11:03 AM']Does any of this give cause to lose one's belief in God? Nope.[/quote]

Some of it would cause doubt, The Church has always taught that the serpent in Genesis is Satan. Liberal Theology says that the serpent is not Satan.

Edited April 14, 2007 by KnightofChrist

[FullTruth]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1241428' date='Apr 13 2007, 12:43 PM']Outside of the satanic witch hunt I would like to address some of his points to points.
1.) This issue of the actual existence of Satan. The accusation that the Church invented Satan, including the exegsis of Job

2.) The theology of last things is not accurate based on the fact that he sees numerous stories. Even accusing Christianity of going against the Jewish revelation. Heaven and Hell is Zoroastrianism, not christian
3.) Logic of God's existence. (yes his function here is horrible, but having something hard and pointy to hit him with would help)

4.) Christianity is rejected for lack of logic. It is only a warm/fuzzy not logical
My mom is going to continue in dialogue with this man. Might as well him him hard.[/quote]
On this persons thoughts about 'Super Humans' in the bible, and the comparison of the Bible and the other Myths of the world, hit him with this.

On those similarities, He is talking about Genesis 6:4, and Numbers, and Leviticus, and Deuteronmy when it comes to Giants/nephilim

He is right - that the Bible talks about them.

But in the Bible's case, these 'Super Humans' were destroyed by the flood, and later by the Israelites, as they destroyed the inhabitants of Canaan.

One shows them in a postive light, like Merlin, Herculese.

The Bible shows them in a negative light, that they are evil and needed to be destroyed.

[Jaime]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1242902' date='Apr 14 2007, 11:26 AM']In which way do you believe multiple gods are mentioned in the OT? Does the inspired word of God, hint that these gods exist? Or that these gods are false not to be worshiped and do not exist?
Perhaps in Liberal Theology but not so in reality. Who then is the serpent in the Garden? A myth? Some other evil being? And while the OT may not have the full story on Satan as is in the NT, there is a pretty big and thick slice of Satan and his evils in the OT, one can not certainly say after actually reading the OT that Satan is not portrayed as evil and opposed to God.
Resemble yes perhaps, based on, no.
Some of it would cause doubt, The Church has always taught that the serpent in Genesis is Satan. Liberal Theology says that the serpent is not Satan.[/quote]


Knight its clear that you have never taken any theology on Old testament. The Israelites did not understand that there was only one God until the time of Moses. That's why Moses asks God which god he is. They(we) didn't realize until the moment that God said "I am who am" that there was only one deity in the Universe. It isn't liberal theology that has that understanding. Its theology. Take the creation story "Let us make man in our image" Today we would attribute that to the three parts of the Trinity. But genesis was written well before the concept of the Trinity was revealed. For a time they believed that other gods existed and didn't realize that the god of Isaac, the god of Abraham, etc were just God.

As far as satan is concerned, you are simply applying a Christian understanding of Satan to OT readings. You have an understanding that satan is evil. But the writers of OT had no such concept. They believed that satan was a defender of God. He felt that the flawed nature of man made him unworthy of God's love. That role is played out even today within the Church. If someone is up for sainthood, a priest or bishop is nominated as a "Devil's advocate" to ensure that this person is worthy. It isn't an evil role its to protect the faith. This was the OT understanding of the role of satan.

[N/A Gone]

Thanks hot stuff.

Considering that my mom is a budge-type christian it is amazing how much of her own understanding is Catholic and she does not know

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1243166' date='Apr 14 2007, 05:32 PM']Knight its clear that you have never taken any theology on Old testament. The Israelites did not understand that there was only one God until the time of Moses. That's why Moses asks God which god he is. They(we) didn't realize until the moment that God said "I am who am" that there was only one deity in the Universe. It isn't liberal theology that has that understanding. Its theology. Take the creation story "Let us make man in our image" Today we would attribute that to the three parts of the Trinity. But genesis was written well before the concept of the Trinity was revealed. For a time they believed that other gods existed and didn't realize that the god of Isaac, the god of Abraham, etc were just God.

As far as satan is concerned, you are simply applying a Christian understanding of Satan to OT readings. You have an understanding that satan is evil. But the writers of OT had no such concept. They believed that satan was a defender of God. He felt that the flawed nature of man made him unworthy of God's love. That role is played out even today within the Church. If someone is up for sainthood, a priest or bishop is nominated as a "Devil's advocate" to ensure that this person is worthy. It isn't an evil role its to protect the faith. This was the OT understanding of the role of satan.[/quote]


There is never one form of theology, what you have pointed out is commonly called is liberal theology. Traditional theology is that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, or the books were brought down from Moses, thus Moses would have know there is but one God, and his writings or stories would reflect that. It is Liberal Theology which says Moses did not write the first five books, or had nothing or little to do with them, someone else wrote the books. And the books came together from many sources. Which is only put in Moses' name.

The Holy Scriptures however state or strongly imply that Moses is the author of the Pentateuch, about two dozen verses in the OT and one dozen in the NT. In Traditional theology the bible is free from error because it is the inspired would of God, thus when it states and/or implies Moses himself wrote the books it is right.

Jesus and the Apostles understood that Moses was the writer of the Pentateuch (Matthew 22:31; Matthew 22:24; Mark 12:19; Mark 12:26; Luke 16:16; Luke 16:29; Luke 20:28; Luke 20:37; Luke 24:44-6; Acts 3:22 Acts 13:33; Acts 15:21; Acts 28:23; 1 Corinthians 9:9; 2 Corinthians 3:15; Romans 10:5-8; Revelation 15:3)

[Katholikos]

[quote name='Justin (Wiccan)' post='1242235' date='Apr 13 2007, 10:23 PM']Eh ... that's not entirely correct. Yes, Judaism relies heavily on the oral tradition, but they also rely on the Tanakh, and on the decisions of former Rabbis of note. It's similar to Catholics and the combination of Received Tradition, the Bible, and the Magisterium, save that in Judaism the "Magisterium" is not centralized.[/quote]

Eh, Judaism flourished before the Tanakh had been reduced to writing. Just as Catholicism flourished long before the NT or the Bible came to exist.

[Jaime]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1243592' date='Apr 14 2007, 09:42 PM']There is never one form of theology, what you have pointed out is commonly called is liberal theology. Traditional theology is that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, or the books were brought down from Moses, thus Moses would have know there is but one God, and his writings or stories would reflect that. It is Liberal Theology which says Moses did not write the first five books, or had nothing or little to do with them, someone else wrote the books. And the books came together from many sources. Which is only put in Moses' name.

The Holy Scriptures however state or strongly imply that Moses is the author of the Pentateuch, about two dozen verses in the OT and one dozen in the NT. In Traditional theology the bible is free from error because it is the inspired would of God, thus when it states and/or implies Moses himself wrote the books it is right.

Jesus and the Apostles understood that Moses was the writer of the Pentateuch (Matthew 22:31; Matthew 22:24; Mark 12:19; Mark 12:26; Luke 16:16; Luke 16:29; Luke 20:28; Luke 20:37; Luke 24:44-6; Acts 3:22 Acts 13:33; Acts 15:21; Acts 28:23; 1 Corinthians 9:9; 2 Corinthians 3:15; Romans 10:5-8; Revelation 15:3)[/quote]

This kind of deflection is going to get this moved back to the debate table. I'm not going to get into a debate about who wrote the first five books. It does not have any impact on the content of them. What the first five books do is outline the growth of faith by the Israelites.

Nothing that I've stated is in dispute. None of what I've written is considered liberal. Simply labeling as such just because it doesn't suit your fancy doesn't change the fact that the Israelites moved from a polytheistic system of belief to the monotheistic.

And btw you have offered nothing to dispute it