Sin

[thalbergmad]

She's BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nowhere near deranged enough.

[oxy60]

It's difficult to make a reasonable response amid all this flaming.

For the believers I hope they didn't miss the pope's forgiveness (as referred to in Tannhauser), yesterday (urbis et orbi).

For the non-believers, remember "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

"Sin bravely"

[timothy42b]

Nowhere near deranged enough.

Nor was pianistimo initially, but a little encouragement brought it out.

Perhaps if we engage rose in religious conversation? 
 
Something relevant to the topic of sin, perhaps?

I'll give it a shot.

Is it a sin to believe something obviously false?  Maybe you've been told it, and just never thought about it.  Telling a lie knowingly is clearly a sin.  telling a lie unknowingly should not be held against you.  Telling a lie unknowingly, when a moment's thought would have made it obvious - doesn't that fall into the sin category?

Example:  Isaiah 7:14 is widely claimed to be prophetic of the birth of Jesus.  "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a child, and thou shalt call his name Immanuel."  But Mary didn't! She called him Jesus.  So if it were real prophecy Mary was fiercely disobedient to God's messenger, and therefore sinful.  But what it proves is that particular verse is not prophetic.  Therefore everyone who claims it is, and that includes EVERYBODY WHO DID NOT NOTICE THAT GLARING PROBLEM! is sinful. 

I have a better one, this is just a warmup. 

[rachmaninoff_forever]

God uses the Bible to teach you!

Psalms 14:1

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
    They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds,
    there is none who does good.

It would make a lot more sense for him to come down here rather than use a 2000 year old book to threaten and insult us.

[timothy42b]

It would make a lot more sense for him to come down here rather than use a 2000 year old book to threaten and insult us.

That would threaten the concept of free will.  We must be allowed the free will to believe or not believe - being supplied proof would remove it. 

Free will, of course, is not anywhere in the bible, but must be inferred.

Because if we don't have free will, we clearly can't be blamed for sinning.  And so a God that holds us accountable for that which we cannot control cannot be a just God. 

[j_menz]

It would make a lot more sense for him to come down here

I rather thought the whole basis of Christianity was that in fact he did.

[dima_76557]

Is it a sin to believe something obviously false?  Maybe you've been told it, and just never thought about it.  Telling a lie knowingly is clearly a sin.  telling a lie unknowingly should not be held against you.  Telling a lie unknowingly, when a moment's thought would have made it obvious - doesn't that fall into the sin category?

Example:  Isaiah 7:14 is widely claimed to be prophetic of the birth of Jesus.  "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a child, and thou shalt call his name Immanuel."  But Mary didn't! She called him Jesus.  So if it were real prophecy Mary was fiercely disobedient to God's messenger, and therefore sinful.  But what it proves is that particular verse is not prophetic.  Therefore everyone who claims it is, and that includes EVERYBODY WHO DID NOT NOTICE THAT GLARING PROBLEM! is sinful.  

Sorry, but your example does not hold:
1) "Immanuel" ("God [is] with us") = one of the many DESCRIPTIVE names Jesus is referred to by the prophets, not meant as a real name to give to the child.
2) "Thou" does clearly NOT refer to Mary.

[j_menz]

2) "Thou" does clearly NOT refer to Mary.

It is also not in the original, nor any translation I could find. The usual translation is:

"Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a child, and shall call his name Immanuel." 

[dima_76557]

It is also not in the original, nor any translation I could find. The usual translation is:

"Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a child, and shall call his name Immanuel."  

I am not going into religion. Just indicate 3 problems with the quote:
1) We do not know for sure if Isaiah 7:14 refers to Jesus.
2) Jesus is referred to with many names: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace, Savior, etc. etc., so why not "Immanuel" (God [is] with us)?
3) Translations of literature into another language always cause problems because of cultural messages that could be missed in target language. E.g.: In China, "bread" has not the cultural meaning of essential physical "food", and everywhere in the Bible where "bread" is used in a spiritual sence, we would better translate it with "rice" to get the spiritual meaning , etc.

[j_menz]

I am not going into religion. Just indicate 3 problems with the quote:

I'm steering well clear of the main game here too. My only issue with the quote is that it is a misquote. Your point 2 depended on the error and does not apply if the correct quote is used.

I otherwise make no comment on the arguments advanced in relation to it, nor any rebuttal thereof.

[dima_76557]

I'm steering well clear of the main game here too. My only issue with the quote is that it is a misquote. Your point 2 depended on the error and does not apply if the correct quote is used.

Not really.
Translation used by Timothy is probably variant of Wycliff Bible:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%207:14&version=WYC

It is translation with interpretation (=show opion by translator) where "thou" and Mary are not the same person. In YOUR translation, MARY will call Jesus another name. That is: if Mary is the only virgin in the Bible that gave birth to a child (I think there were far more). You see confusion of translations?

[j_menz]

Not really.
Translation used by Timothy is probably variant of Wycliff Bible:

That may well be the case. Not a version noted for it's accuracy, and certainly a minority view on this passage:

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Isaiah%207:14

[dima_76557]

That may well be the case. Not a version noted for it's accuracy, and certainly a minority view on this passage:

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Isaiah%207:14

In any case, I do not know who is right and who is wrong, and this quote cannot prove anything about the topic - sin. I just know that people who call themselves Christians are ready to drink the blood of other people who call themselves Christians because of differences in such interpretations. Personally, I suspect the "name calling" part in the quote could have been in passive voice in the original (a child that "will be called" - we do not know who causes the action) which would mean the official translation was deliberately phrased to mean without a doubt that the virgin in the verse is indeed Mary.
P.S.: As I understand, you are a lawyer. You must know how important such details are in defending a client.

[j_menz]

You must know how important such details are

That's why the following is the only authoritative version to use in arguments:


לכן יתן אדני הוא לכם אות הנה העלמה הרה וילדת בן וקראת שמו עמנו אל׃

 

[dima_76557]

That's why the following is the only authoritative version to use in arguments:


לכן יתן אדני הוא לכם אות הנה העלמה הרה וילדת בן וקראת שמו עמנו אל׃

 

OK, I trust you know original language.
But where is Mary in that quote? In Matthew, we have another quote, which is similar in structure but it clearly refers to who is who:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1%3A21-23&version=NIV

[ahinton]

She's BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No; differences in declared location (a Virgin rather than a Philly), style and, to some degree (so far, at any rate), content, to say nothing of loquacity! Not only that, it's a "sin" to register more than once as a forum member...

Best,

Alistair

[birba]

You've all scared her away.  She'll never come back to this thread.
Maybe she's a jehovah witness.  They come visit me every few weeks.  I've given up trying to chase them away.  I've told them I'm a devout buddhist,  I'm not interested in eternal salvation,  I don't believe the bible is the only book of "truth" in the world, etc. etc. etc.  but to no avail.  We talk, I listen to their arguments,  we have a cup of coffee together,  and then we say good-bye.  I guess they mean well.  But don't you find it sort of presumptious of them to think only they know the truth? But if it gives them faith - and you certainly need it to believe what they do - I prefer to humour them and give them some sort of satisfaction.
But I thought I had seen this roseamelia here before.  Not in this context, however.

[dima_76557]

You've all scared her away.  She'll never come back to this thread.
Maybe she's a jehovah witness.  They come visit me every few weeks.  I've given up trying to chase them away.  I've told them I'm a devout buddhist,  I'm not interested in eternal salvation,  I don't believe the bible is the only book of "truth" in the world, etc. etc. etc.  but to no avail.

They are thouroughly trained to discuss limited subjects with you, and you will lose the battle if you let them. Give them a question they can NOT answer and next time some more "advanced" members will show up, and so on.

Good question, for a sample, is: Who are WE to judge what will happen to mankind for their sins if God Himself picked one of the most terrible sinners ever to be His most beloved apostle? (Paul was Saul of Tarsus before he became apostle who hated, fervently and systematically hunted down and killed Christians in great numbers = genocide).

They have no answer to such questions, and neither do many judgemental non-christians and Christians who use the Bible as a weapon.

[ahinton]

You've all scared her away.  She'll never come back to this thread.
Maybe she's a jehovah witness.  They come visit me every few weeks.  I've given up trying to chase them away.  I've told them I'm a devout buddhist,  I'm not interested in eternal salvation,  I don't believe the bible is the only book of "truth" in the world, etc. etc. etc.  but to no avail.  We talk, I listen to their arguments,  we have a cup of coffee together,  and then we say good-bye.  I guess they mean well.  But don't you find it sort of presumptious of them to think only they know the truth? But if it gives them faith - and you certainly need it to believe what they do - I prefer to humour them and give them some sort of satisfaction.
But I thought I had seen this roseamelia here before.  Not in this context, however.

You have - and indeed not in this context. If she really has been scared away from here by recent responses, it would seem unlikely that she's a Jehovah witness, since you demonstrate above that you are aware of the tenacity for which such folk have quite a widespread reputation...

Best,

Alistair

[rachmaninoff_forever]

You've all scared her away.  She'll never come back to this thread.
Maybe she's a jehovah witness.  They come visit me every few weeks.  I've given up trying to chase them away.

I tell them I'm having a black mass.

[ahinton]

I tell them I'm having a black mass.

Not a bad ploy, perhaps, but why not go the whole hog and say to the next one (or rather two - they always seem to turn up in pairs, in my fortunately limited experience of them, probably in the interests of personal safety) "I will win the heart of Valentina Lisitsa; then, with her by my side, I will revive Scriabin and fulfil his destiny by performing his Mysterium on the top of Mt. Everest and end the world!!!"? That should get rid of them sharpish (although there might be a small risk that one of them calls either the police or the nearest psychiatric hospital)...

Best,

Alistair

[oxy60]

Don't be so hard on King James. I'm sure he did the best job he could taking into account the religious context and his resources.

[timothy42b]

Not really.
Translation used by Timothy is probably variant of Wycliff Bible:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%207:14&version=WYC

It is translation with interpretation (=show opion by translator) where "thou" and Mary are not the same person. In YOUR translation, MARY will call Jesus another name. That is: if Mary is the only virgin in the Bible that gave birth to a child (I think there were far more). You see confusion of translations?

I have no idea what version I recalled from the memory of a thousand Christmas pageants. 

There are a number of problems with using Isaiah as prediction (not prophesy, which is different) not least of which is that Isaiah doesn't say virgin.  (almah is not betulah) 

The difference in names (Jesus vs Immanuel) is not a biblical contradiction, but simply an illustration of the literary device called midrash.  Of course conservative and fundamentalist Christians generally are unaware of this, in the belief the Bible was written in English.  At least, in the US.

No, what I find striking about the difference in names is simply that nobody notices.  Of the millions of people who watch the little kiddies put on the pageant in their church every year, how many notice that Jesus is not named Immanuel, as a naive reading of Isaiah should have required? 

So far, I am the only one. 

How can that be?  Why haven't you all wondered?

What else are you missing?   

 

[thalbergmad]

Of course conservative and fundamentalist Christians generally are unaware of this 

Well, they are unaware of a lot of things.

Thal

[ahinton]

Well, they are unaware of a lot of things.

Or choose to be so; the Jehovah's Witnesses people whom I earlier mentioned as habitually going about in pairs (rather as do VAT inspectors on an investigation) are a prime example, in the sense that one probably provides the sand for the other to stick his/her head in...

Best,

Alistair

[dima_76557]

There are a number of problems with using Isaiah as prediction (not prophesy, which is different) not least of which is that Isaiah doesn't say virgin.  (almah is not betulah)  

The difference in names (Jesus vs Immanuel) is not a biblical contradiction, but simply an illustration of the literary device called midrash.  Of course conservative and fundamentalist Christians generally are unaware of this, in the belief the Bible was written in English.  At least, in the US.

No, what I find striking about the difference in names is simply that nobody notices.  Of the millions of people who watch the little kiddies put on the pageant in their church every year, how many notice that Jesus is not named Immanuel, as a naive reading of Isaiah should have required?  

So far, I am the only one.  

How can that be?  Why haven't you all wondered?

What else are you missing?

I am not a practising Christian. I read the Bible because it is mandatory reading if you want to become an artist, just like you have to read Byron, Goethe, Dante, and the rest of the greats.

In the context of what you wrote, what do you do then with Matthew's remark about Isiah's verse being indeed a prophecy? Isn't that the reason nobody among the believers is asking questions? I am quite sure you are not the only one who noticed the difference in namings. The only problem is: Who does the naming in which case? Bold and underlined, with question marks are the parts that are crucial:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1%3A21-23&version=NIV

21 She (?) will give birth to a son, and you (?) are to give him the name Jesus (?), because he will save his people from their sins.
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet:
23 "The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they (?) will call him Immanuel" (which means "God with us").

[timothy42b]

I am not a practising Christian

.
At least, not in the pianistimo mode!   Still, that did make for stimulating conversation. 

In the context of what you wrote, what do you do then with Matthew's remark about Isiah's verse being indeed a prophecy?

Several things.  First of all, he says it's from the prophet.  You have to understand something that may not be obvious.  Prophecy is not prediction.  Prophecy is merely greater access to the will of God than most people, it has nothing to do with the future. 

Secondly, Matthew despite obviously being fluent only in Greek is writing in the Hebrew midrash tradition, which requires that stories always be set in the context of earlier ones to emphasize their importance and the continuity of the people.  This is common in Old Testament writings, but often missed in NT.  The scriptures must be read within the context of the times, the culture, and the language.  Of course, a significant subset of American Christians eschew scholarship and violently disagree, feeling ANYONE can read with equal understanding, because the Holy Spirit will guide us.  Apparently he guides us all in different directions. 

Thirdly, Isiah did not say virgin.  He used the term young woman, which does not connote virginity.  Matthew who was working with a Greek version simply misinterpreted.  Well, since Matthew and Luke copied much of Mark, who copied Q, wellllllllllllllllll never mind.   

Isn't that the reason nobody among the believers is asking questions?

I'm sure you realize asking questions is frowned upon among believers.

[oxy60]

Or choose to be so; the Jehovah's Witnesses people whom I earlier mentioned as habitually going about in pairs (rather as do VAT inspectors on an investigation) are a prime example, in the sense that one probably provides the sand for the other to stick his/her head in...

Best,

Alistair

Also the Mormons, or just any church canvasser. Why do they go in pairs? To check that they stay on message/dogma?

[dima_76557]

the Jehovah's Witnesses people whom I earlier mentioned as habitually going about in pairs (rather as do VAT inspectors on an investigation) are a prime example, in the sense that one probably provides the sand for the other to stick his/her head in...

Also the Mormons, or just any church canvasser. Why do they go in pairs? To check that they stay on message/dogma?

All evangelizing organisations do this. Strictly formally, there are instructions in the Bible to do so: 2 Corinthians 13:1, John 8:17, Matthew 18:20.

[ahinton]

And the animals went in two by two as well, apparently...

Best,

Alistair

[rachmaninoff_forever]

(although there might be a small risk that one of them calls either the police or the nearest psychiatric hospital)...

Best,

Alistair

Nah bro, they'll probably be like, 'I'll pray for you'.

[timothy42b]

And the animals went in two by two as well, apparently...

Best,

Alistair

Depends.  There are two flood stories included, just as there are two creation stories, and several other examples of multiple versions being included. 

[thalbergmad]

There are two flood stories included

According to Graham Hancock, outside of the Bible there are over 150 flood stories.

Seems like something happened albeit I don't subscribe to all this Noah bollox.

Thal

[ahinton]

Nah bro, they'll probably be like, 'I'll pray for you'.

I wish I'd not even mentioned these people now; I've not seen any for quite some time and two just came to my door a few minutes ago! I did not wait to hear what they might have had to say, although I strove not to be impolite and did not close the door so fast that I caught one of their copies of Watchtower drivel in it.

Best,

Alistair

[oxy60]

All evangelizing organisations do this. Strictly formally, there are instructions in the Bible to do so: 2 Corinthians 13:1, John 8:17, Matthew 18:20.

That I did not know.

Where I live there is a clause in the rental contract prohibiting proselytizing within the complex. I like that idea and willingly signed. However that doesn't prevent outsiders; in pairs!