Re: Making money from Java


"Judson McClendon" <judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:wT8lf.54020$s92.31937@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Peter Lacey" <lacey@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Judson McClendon wrote:
>>>
>>> > It might also be a good idea to point out that the Bible misquotes
>>> > itself (KJV Luke 4:17-19, Jesus reading from the book of Isaiah
>>> > 61:1-2):
>>> > similar but not identical.
>>>
>>> What part of "Since Jesus, as God, inspired Isaiah to write what he did,
>>> He
>>> was also free to paraphrase what Isaiah wrote." don't you understand.
>>> ;-)
>>
>> Well, you tell me: the verb involved is "read". You might also tell me
>> what the purpose would be of Jesus/God "paraphrasing" his own words.
>> You might also tell me why you say he's paraphrasing.
>
> Peter, the Old Testament (which was the only 'Bible' available in Jesus'
> time) was written in Ancient Hebrew. The New Testament is written in Greek
> and Aramaic. If you know or have been exposed to more than one language,
> you will know that it is sometimes difficult, perhaps even impossible to
> express *exactly* the same statement in two languages.

No it isn't....

"This is bull***"
"Dieses ist Bull***"
"C'est connerie"
"???bull*** ????"

It depends entirely on the statement.

>But my point was that, Jesus, being the actual author of all Scripture
>(through inspiration of the Holy Spirit), the He is certainly free to
>articulate those Scriptures in any way He sees fit. From what rational
>standpoint would a finite created being be able to challenge his infinite
>Creator's actions? ;-) There's far less distance between a microbe and a
>man (both being finite) than between a finite man and infinite God. That
>gulf is vast beyond human comprehension. God can bridge the gap to us, but
>man could never bridge the gap to God, without God's help. Nor could man
>understand God, or anything about God, without Divine revelation. For a man
>to think otherwise is the epitomy of conceit and foolishness. :-)
>

Judson, I have kept out of this because I see it as a pretty tedious thread,
with no minds about to be changed, even though some of the viewpoints and
opinions expressed are "interesting".

However, with the above you may have gone too far.

It isn't even logical. There is no conceit or foolishiness in seeking to
understand God. It is a necessary path to growth.(Whether you succeed in
reaching the understanding or not...)

Yet, you have defined God to be ineffable, unknowable, infinite and
therefore unable to be understood.

Er... man is created in His image, and is NOT ineffable, unknowable,
infinite, or unable to be understood. And throughout the Bible this infinite
superior being behaves like a spoilt brat. Raining frogs, destroying cities,
and killing children just to show how powerful He is. (More like an insecure
6 year old than the Lord God of Hosts. Certainly not very infinite when it
comes to wisdom, or restraint... )There are many bright minds who are
capable of dealing with the infinite... why should dealing with God be any
different?

You are saying that anyone who disagrees with you is either conceited or
foolish. I say, anyone who says that people who disagree with him are either
conceited or foolish, has closed his mind and stopped listening. An unkind
person might call this arrogance.

Draw your own conclusions.

>>> > Also; the only independent mention of Jesus
>>> > is in jesephus, in an entry which is now almost universally agreed to
>>> > be
>>> > a later interpolation.
>>>
>>> I'll have to save that particular comment as the most uninformed
>>> statement I
>>> have seen in quite a while. :-)
>>
>> Possibly; I don't know what you have seen in quite a while.
>>
>>> Peter, it has been said that if every
>>> single copy of the Bible were destroyed, it would be possible to
>>> reconstruct
>>> the entire Bible simply from references in other ancient texts. :-)
>>
>> That may also be so, although I'd be dubious about the New Testament.
>> Still, you haven't answered what I wrote: that there is no INDEPENDENT
>> mention of Jesus except in Josephus. Julius Caesar is mentioned in
>> sources other than his own writings.
>
> That statement is simply false.
>
>>> Greenleaf's curiosity, and he spend several months studying the issue.
>>> The
>>> result is a small (128pg) book by Greenleaf called "The Testimony of the
>>> Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered
>>> in
>>> Courts of Justice." In the book Greenleaf closely examines the evidence
>>> and
>>> makes a determination regarding its validity. I will let Greenleaf speak
>>> for
>>> himself, but he was quite certain of the outcome. :-)
>>
>> It must be a remarkable little book. From Biblical evidence alone, you
>> can't tell me Jesus' birth year or month; you can't give a consistent
>> list of the twelve disciples; you can't tell me why one family would
>> have two living daughters named Mary; and you can't tell me whether the
>> last supper was on Passover or the day before. Nor can you tell me the
>> name of the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary.
>>
>> Old testament: why does poor old Pharoah have such a bad reputation;
>> after all, for the last four of the plagues, he was ready to let the
>> Israelites go, but God hardened his heart then punished him again.
>> What's the point of that? Did you, when you got married, take a year
>> off to cheer up your wife (Deut.24:5)?
>>
>> (If anybody want to know the source of these statements, contact me
>> off-group).
>>
>>
>>> If you are willing to do some real study to find the truth, and want to
>>> know
>>> where the evidence is, then I recommend the book "Evidence That Demands
>>> a
>>> Verdict" by Josh McDowell.
>>
>> As it happens, I have it. I found it very difficult to read because of
>> his idea of argument.
>>
>> Never mind. I'm an agnostic by decision, because there isn't enough
>> information available to the mortal man. The Bible is insufficient in
>> and of itself simply because it condemns everybody not fortunate enough
>> to hear (or have heard before the time of Jesus) of it. Further, there
>> are impossible difficulties with the "eternity" required by Christian
>> theology. I don't dispute that there was a man named Jesus. He may
>> even have done all the things that the Bible says he does. But since I
>> wasn't there at the time (and you weren't either) we have to subject the
>> Bible as history to the same sort of open-minded skepticism that we
>> would to any other document of equal antiquity.
>>
>> (You haven't commented on my concept of how the holy words of God would
>> be written, I notice).
>>
>> The Bible and the Koran are both the words of God, according to their
>> followers. I have to throw the towel in at that point because - again -
>> there isn't enough available information to make a rational choice.
>>
>> I've had experience with discussions like this before. My brother is of
>> your school of thought, although he's had to mellow a bit with age. I
>> find that he never quite answers the question and is adept at shifting
>> the subject. Nor will he answer questions about what things in Greek
>> actually say: for instance: KJV: Genesis 7:20 - "fifteen cubits upwards
>> did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered". What EXACTLY
>> is the translation of the original Greek? (A cubit is usually taken to
>> be 18"; so it wasn't all that much of a flood. Either that or the
>> mountains were pretty puny then. You can get out if it by assuming that
>> the verse means that the waters were 15 cubits higher than the mountains
>> - but since the Bible doesn't actually say so you can't claim it as
>> Truth. Nor does the Bible state where that much water came from - Mount
>> Ararat is over 17,000 feet high - or where it went). In any case,
>> what's been accepted by faith is never admitted to be open to question -
>> thence the unsatisfactory discussions.
>>
>> Answer if you like, Judson; further questioning or commentary on my part
>> would be pointless. Our standards of proof are utterly incompatible. I
>> think you're wrong but that's your privelege.
>
> The difference between us is that I know God personally. Nothing special
> about me, God is eager to have a relationship with all of us. With you as
> much as with me or anybody else. We were created for this very purpose.

Was He lonely then? Did He need respect and admiration? Not very well
adjusted is He? I guess that explains His irrational behaviour in the OT.

>God became a man and died on a Roman cross to provide a way for our
>offenses against Him to be forgiven, marked "Paid in Full".

Why did they require a blood sacrifice in order to be forgiven? Why couldn't
Jesus just say "Hey, folks, look, there's a much better way than all this
robbing and killing and rampaging that's going on. Be kind to one another.
Forgive the people who rip you off, have a kind and loving heart. You'll be
amazed at how much better the world could be. Oh, and my Father (who is
really me, but we'll wait until you've all learned to read before going into
that one...) says, if you turn over a new leaf all the previous wicked stuff
you did will be wiped clean. Clean slate. You can have as much chance at
Heaven as those Pharisees and High Priests have... level playing field,
everybody equal, just behave better..."

Then, there would be no need for all the ensuing nastiness, with perfectly
good temple veils being rent and darkness on the land and Mel Gibson having
to exorcise his Catholic School upbringing...

What kind of God requires His own son to be tortured to death to pay off the
debt of Mankind?

Just forgive it. We can do it with Third World debt, and we are far from
infinite, wise, omnipresent, or omnipotent.


>It's easy to meet God.

My understanding is that anyone who has since Moses, never returns to talk
about it...

> All you have to do is to ask with a sincere heart (you have to really mean
> it) for God to reveal Himself to you. A lot of people have met God that
> way,

And a lot of people have deluded themselves that way, too. I've attended at
least two Billy Graham Revivals (very good shows) and seen the power of mass
hysteria working...

> "God, if you are really there, then reveal Yourself to me." Then get
> ready, because once you meet God for real, and His Holy Spirit comes to
> live within you, you don't have to guess, you *KNOW* that God is real. I
> speak to God, and He speaks to me.

So, He has bridged the gap because you couldn't? But you did by asking, even
though you previously stated it wasn't possible. There was this infinite all
powerful Being who decided He might as well have a chat with Judson. And to
what purpose would that be? Presumably He knows what you're going to say
before you say it, and He already knows what His response will be before He
makes it. Kind of a pointless conversation isn't it? And He's doing this all
the time with legions of the faithful... well, I guess if you are infinite
you have to try and pass the time somehow... Maybe He should just start
another pointless thread on CLC... maybe He has... maybe this is it...

> But, this is a personal thing between God and each of us. God is not going
> to force Himself on anybody who doesn't want Him.

Ah, so there IS free will? But if He's infinite there cannot be... any
choice I make will include God, and will have been foreseen by God. It seems
to me that He's finite when it suits your argument and infinite when that
suits your argument.

> All of us have a choice, we can reject God and spend eternity without God,
> or receive God and spend eternity with God.

Or, you could just die and have your atoms redistrubuted back to the Cosmos
from whence they came, with NO eternity (other than the Laws of
Thermodynamics, guaranteeing the eventual heat death of the Universe.... NOT
eternal, but certainly a very long time (unless you're infinite, of course,
in which case the life of the Universe would be the blink of an eye...))


>If you want to meet God, He is ready and waiting. But the choice is up to
>each of us. Personally, I would rather spend eternity with Someone who was
>willing to die for me, even before I knew Him. :-)

Even if you were right, I wouldn't want to spend eternity with someone who
was ready to die for me before I met him... it shows a marked lack of
judgement, on his part. Besides, I never asked him to die for me (I wouldn't
ask that of anyone... )quite happy to take responsibility for my own
transgressions, thanks.

Pete.


.