|
Click Here to Login |
Register | Premium Upgrade | Blogs | Gallery | Arcade | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Log in |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
![]() |
#1 |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 06:24 PM
|
Setting biblical misconceptions straight
First of all...
__________________adam and eve they were not the only people on earth. If you read Genesis. Cain said to the Lord , "My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me." I think that implies there are many more outside don't you think?? Theres another verse which is even more clear. Adam and even were simply the first created. I also hear ravenstar say that all are created in the image of man. Thats "man" in the general "mankind" sense. ----------- Actually, I would like to hear how people figure the post flood earth was repopulated. That I can't figure out |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Refugee
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Purgatory
Posts: 1,101
Local Time: 03:54 PM
|
simple: there was no flood. Or atleast in the biblical sense. Ever heard of the Black Sea Flood? The Black sea was the result of a fast flood. You can tell this by looking at the floor of the sea. You can see a coastline, places where rivers would have been, beaches, etc. Since back then there was next to no worldly connections the people would have thought the whole world had flooded.
__________________ |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:54 PM
|
Bass-
From what I read Noah had Ham and a woman named Egyptus-sp? on The Ark w him along w/some other adults- and all the animals of course, inc ZEdge.. ![]() Scientists universally agree that a A GREAT FLOOD occured parreling the Bibles chronologly. ![]() DB9 |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 03:54 PM
|
Considering the fact that the people on the ark included four married couples (Noah and wife, Shem and wife, Ham and wife, Japheth and wife) I don't know why the idea of them having children and repopulating the earth is all that hard to believe.
__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 06:24 PM
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 03:54 PM
|
Christ was also most likely NOT crucified on a cross...rather a straight staff.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Refugee
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 03:54 PM
|
Quote:
I've heard many various theories about Roman crucifixion, but I am generally wary of those that dispute certain details in the New Testament. Specifically, the Gospels make clear that Jesus' hands and feet were pierced with nails, and His side was pierced with a Roman spear - and an inspection of these wounds is what convinced (doubting) Thomas that Jesus had risen from the dead. If the theory does not dispute important details such as these, I have no problem considering it as a definite possibility.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The author of the preceding is known for engaing in very long discussions. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 09:54 PM
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,824
Local Time: 10:54 PM
|
Quote:
- Piercing hands and feet, although extremely painful, is not enough for a person to die. - The Roman spear did apparently not cause a fatal wound. The most likely cause of death would be asphyxiation (yes, I had to go to the Meriam-Webster's dictionary to look up the exact spelling ![]() BTW, a crucified person was not only nailed to the cross, his arms were also tied to the cross. The Romans already knew that nails only could not hold a person (it will tear up flesh when faced with a weight of more than 25 kg). It was thus only added for extra cruelty. Marty P.S. I said probable death of Jesus as there are stories he didn't die at the cross, but was merely unconscious (and heavily wounded) and he got away to India. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
New Yorker
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: heehee, ask george
Posts: 3,194
Local Time: 03:54 PM
|
![]()
Isn't there a school of thought that Jesus was nailed to the cross thru his wrists rather than his hands?
|
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Jesus Online
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 07:54 AM
|
Were people back then aware of the implications of indreeding? And do you think that people had the kind of general idea that breeding with family members might be wrong genetically speaking? I've always wondered about this. Also whether 8 people (from Sula's comment re: 4 couples) are enough to avoid this. I am too lazy to work this out.
A potential misconception I have wondered about is the said other 2 men who were put on crosses either side of him. Is this true? And was one really a thief and one a murderer? How common a practice was placing men on a cross to either asphyxiate or starve to death? |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Refugee
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 03:54 PM
|
I've recently read Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ, a book that scrutinizes the evidence for Jesus Christ's life, death and ressurection. The author interviewed Alexander Metherell, M.D., Ph.D., to get answers about many of the questions and theories about the cross, including those mentioned here. In brief:
Metherell believes that Jesus was killed on a t-shape cross - nailed to a horizontal beam (called a patibulum) which was then attached to a vertical beam that was set permanently into the ground. He also believes that Jesus was nailed through the wrists, which would be enough to support the weight; in the language of that time and place, however, the wrist was considered part of the hand. The pain would have been terrible, to the degree that the Romans had to invent a new word to describe it - "excruciating," but Metherell agrees that death would have been caused by asphyxiation. If that weren't enough (and it certainly was), the piercing through His side probably punctured a lung and the heart. That would have caused the issuing of the pericardial effusion and pleural effusion, thereby explaining the "blood AND water (emphasis mine)" mentioned in John 19:34. Finally, the book addressed the so-called "swoon theory," that Christ did not actually die on the cross. It has been an apparently pernicious theory, appearing as early as in the Koran (written in the seventh century) and as recently as a book published in 1992. Metherell rejects the theory as ridiculous. Jesus would not have long survived the hypovolemic shock from losing so much blood during the flogging beforehand. He could not have faked His death on the cross itself, because "you can't fake the inability to breathe for long." He could not have survived a spear piercing a lung and his heart. And He certainly could not have survived the combination of the three. The Roman soldiers, who were experts in killing people and liable for death themselves if a condemned man survived, would not have allowed Him to escape alive. The theory that suggests otherwise is "impossible," "a fanciful theory without any possible basis in fact." Jesus died that day. Period. The only real question is whether the story ends there.
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The author of the preceding is known for engaing in very long discussions. |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 06:24 PM
|
I think the flood problem needs more analysis here...
how did this work? I think I can explain the color thing as adaption to enviroment...I actually think thats how micro-evolution would explain it as well. |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
Refugee
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Purgatory
Posts: 1,101
Local Time: 03:54 PM
|
A normal crucifixion usually takes 2-3 weeks. But his only took 2-3 days. Maybe he didn't die but instead passed out therefore making it look like he came back to life.
We did an assignment in science this year that had to do with breeding. we had circles, squares, triangles, and diamonds. Then we were told that we could not breed two of the same shape together because of inbreeding. Circle-Square Circle-Triangle Circle-Diamond Square-triangle Square-Diamond Triangle-Diamond We were then told that all squares hadnt evolved properly and had all died off. So now we are left with: Circle-Triangle Circle-Diamond Triangle-Diamond Now these three combined shapes had to breed. Keep in mind a shape cant breed with its own kind. None of these shapes can breed. Double it so there are two of each shape to begin with, to go along with Sula's theory, the shapes could not survive. Even if Square had of made it, 4 couples could not continue a species. |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 | ||
War Child
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA
Posts: 684
Local Time: 02:54 PM
|
Quote:
2. It appears that crucifixion was a fairly common form of execution used by the Greeks and Romans. From Gerard Sloyan's "The Crucifixion of Jesus: History, Myth, Faith ": Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
#16 | |
War Child
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA
Posts: 684
Local Time: 02:54 PM
|
Quote:
Nothing I've ever seen would lead me to believe that the average Roman crucifixion took 2-3 weeks, and I don't know of any sources that suggest that Christ's crucifixion to 2-3 days. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
Refugee
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Purgatory
Posts: 1,101
Local Time: 03:54 PM
|
Jesus was crucified on good friday right? Isnt it said that he came back to life on Easter? Isnt easter 2-3 days after good friday?
Crucifixtions were quite common back then. Even people who get crucified today take atleast a week to die. |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 | |
Refugee
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: One Nation. Under God.
Posts: 1,513
Local Time: 03:54 PM
|
Quote:
That said, consider John 19:31-35: The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. The Romans were under pressure to keep this particular set of executions brief, since the Passover sabbath was quickly approaching. The Romans broke the legs of the other two, making them unable to push themselves up to breathe; they thus quickly died of asphyxiation. They saw that Jesus was already dead and didn't break His legs. Just to be sure, they STILL pierced His side, likely puncturing a lung and His heart. If He WAS alive at the time (somehow convincingly faking death by asphyxiation), He was certainly killed by that wound. He simply could not have survived the flogging, the nailing to the cross, the asphyxiation it caused, AND the final spear in the side. He did die that day. (Even assuming the impossible feat of his survival, He would have been in an absolutely terrible condition following that day's events. He would have been hard pressed to claim victory over death, and it seems unlikely that His followers would do the same.)
__________________
DISCLAIMER: The author of the preceding is known for engaing in very long discussions. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#19 | |
War Child
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA
Posts: 684
Local Time: 02:54 PM
|
Quote:
Yes, Curcifixtions were quite common back then, but I don't see why that would mean that most took 2-3 weeks. I don't see how someone sitting outside in a lazyboy recliner would survive for 2-3 weeks, let alone someone hanging from a piece of wood they've been nailed to. Help me understand. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 03:54 PM
|
Bubba-
__________________"In the Greek N.T. two words are used for "the cross," on which the Lord was put to death. 1. The word stauros; which denotes an upright pale or stake, to which the criminals were nailed for execution. 2. The word xulon, which generally denotes a piece of a dead log of wood, or timber, for fuel or any other purpose... As the latter word xulon is used for the former stauros, it shoes us that the meaning of each is exactly the same... Our English word "cross" is the translation of the Latin crux; but the Greek stauros no more means a crux than the word "stick" means a "crutch." Homer uses the word stauros of an ordinary pole or stake, or a single piece of timber. And this is the meaning and usage of the word throughout the Greek classics. It never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle, but always of one piece alone. Hence the use of the word xulon in connection with the manner of our Lord's death, and rendered "tree" in Acts 5.30; 10.39; 13.29. Gal. 3.13. 1 Pet. 2.24.... There is nothing in the Greek of the N.T. even to imply two pieces of timber.... The Catacombs in Rome bear the same testimony: "Christ" is never represented there as "hanging on a cross"... In his Letters from Rome, Dean Burgon says: "I question whether a cross occurs on any Christian monument of the first four centuries."" ~The Companion Bible (Kregel Publications), Appendix 162 The Appendix comes to the conclusion that because the Greek letter X was used as the first letter of Christ's name, it was a symbol later adopted by Christians from ancient pagan religions. Nothing there, at least to me, provides any sort of evidence that Christ was NOT pierced through his hands, feet, and side...only that he was crucified on a stake and not a cross. |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|