FooManChoo

They fear neither God nor man.

We need to implement the death penalty for murder so they will do both.

We live in a post-Christian society right now. Sin abounds.

The good news is that Jesus will return and judge the wicked and vindicate His people.

A lot of work that was outsourced to India and other places outside America is the work that is easy and repeatable. It's the sort of stuff that AI can more easily absorb, so it would make sense that they are going to be hit harder there.

quote:

---

Wrong again

---

Yes, you are. It's funny to see you introduce your responses admitting you are wrong :lol:

quote:

---

If you remove the Testimonium, all you have is the one about James the brother of the Jesus called Christ. And that’s in the same collection (2 books later) containing known Christian forgery. And it’s plausible that the Jesus referred to here is Jesus (a common name) son of Damneus.

---

You do realize that scholarship isn't a book-by-book or writing-by-writing thing, but word-by-word and phrase-by-phrase, right? Scholars break down each word and sentence to understand if they are authentic and adhere to the style of the writer. In the case of the TF, there are some phrases that are very disputed, but the paragraph as a whole is not. Most of it is accepted as authentic with some Christian interpolations. You can't throw out the baby with the bathwater here. That's not very "scholarly".

quote:

---

But even if there is a kernel of the Christian Jesus in this Book 20 or the Testimonium from Book 18, at that point Josephus is writing about 70 years or so after Jesus would have died, about 2 generations later. It’s possible if there really is “a kernel of truth underneath the Christian lies” he is regurgitating what some Christians believed about Jesus at that point that he was a flesh and blood man in history. What works against “the kernel” though is that Josephus wrote during the time period of diverse sects of Christianity - some that believed in the supreme archangel Jesus who was firstborn of creation, and some who believed in the guy casting out demons in Galilee.

---

Josephus was a Roman Jew writing about the Jewish people and history to a Roman (Gentile) audience. He wasn't a Christian and he didn't get into the various Christian sects, but only spoke of Jesus as a historical person, made reference to "Christians" (who were so-called early on), and made mention of John the Baptist, which aligns well with the gospel accounts.

Josephus was also very familiar with the Essenes and wrote extensively about them. He was familiar with Christianity, as well, and yet made no mention of Christianity being an off-shoot of Essenism. I think it's important to call that out.

What we do have is a historical account of Jesus by a credible historian (he wasn't hunting down fables), who was familiar with people, places, and events that occurred before and during the alleged time of Jesus' ministry, and yet gives no hint that Jesus was a made up figure, but treats Him as a real person, even if only in passing.

The evidence is strong. You are the outlier.

quote:

---

Nope. Some argue there is a kernel of the historical Jesus underneath the Christian forgery, but it is purely speculative. The vast majority recognize the Testimonium is a Christian forgery and that “the brother of Jesus called Christ” is also a forgery.

---

Quite the opposite. The James passage is hardly disputed at all because there is nothing theologically "off" with his phrasing and is consistent with his style of writing. The TF is also considered by most scholars as partially authentic (denying those specific interpolations). Leading Jewish and Josephus scholars like John Meier and Louis Feldman take this position.

You aren't going to win this one just like you can't pass off the mythicist position as anything but a fringe position.

quote:

---

Nope, no lie. It’s Christian forgery, therefore it’s unreliable, even though it is possible there is an original kernel beneath the forgery and that kernel is speculative and highly debated. It’s very poor evidence for the historical Jesus.

---

You're wrong. See above. Scholars don't discredit an entire passage because of interpolations. They look at each word and phrase.

quote:

---

There’s that hate, with the will of your god being a reflection of inner Foo’s psyche. You want people to suffer forever if they “reject God” because really it is a rejection of you.

---

I don't want you to suffer. I honestly and sincerely hope you repent of your hatred of your creator and turn to Christ by faith for forgiveness of your sins.

When I say you are heading down the path to destruction, I'm telling you what I believe to be true, not what I want to be true.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Moses had not encountered God.

---

So only people who have encountered God are bound by Genesis 9:6?

---

Pharoah was seeking Moses' life for murdering the Egyptian. That's the natural consequence of murder, and the expected (civil) punishment for it.

quote:

---

I'm not sure it does.

Here's the whole section:

---

I'm speaking of the context of the whole Bible. Christians are to treat the whole Bible as God's Word.

quote:

---

Animals aren't capable of committing murder, but they can kill humans, and God is including animals equally (in fact, he lists them first) in His demand for accountability for shedding blood in this part of the covenant. In the context of this passage, the logical conclusion is that it is NOT talking about murder, only killing (or really, only shedding the blood of) human beings.

---

No, it's talking about the value of innocent human life, again, as determined by the context of the rest of the Bible.

The law of Moses as explained in the rest of the Torah makes differentiation between the murderer and the man-slayer (accidental homicide). There is differentiation between the one who kills on purpose and he who kills on accident, as well as killing for capital punishment and killing within the context of just war.

God also commands animals to die in the mosaic law for shedding the blood of man, not because they are morally culpable, but as a sign of the value of the innocent life of man that animals should be destroyed for destroying the life of an image-bearer of God.

"Shedding blood" for wrongful killing categories:
Numbers 35:33; Deuteronomy 19:10; Proverbs 6:17

Example of capital punishment being commanded:
Numbers 35:16–21, 30–31

Example of just war commanded:
Deuteronomy 20:13, 16–17

Example of self-defense being permitted:
Exodus 22:2

The distinction between a murderer and a man-slayer:
Numbers 35:9–28; Deuteronomy 19:1–13

The killing of an animal for killing a man or woman:
Exodus 21:28–32

quote:

---

You have resorted to eisegesis here IMO.

---

It's not eisegesis to interpret Genesis 9:6 in light of the rest of the Bible. If the statement referred to all taking of human life--including in self-defense, just war, and capital punishment--then God would have contradicted Himself in commanding the taking of life elsewhere. You are the one ignoring basic biblical interpretative methodology by looking at this verse in isolation.

quote:

---

You mean like David committing murder to conceal his affair with Bathsheba? Or Moses murdering an Egyptian in an action that was not ordered or sanctioned by God?

---

God set the standard for human justice in Genesis 9:6. In Moses' case, he was actually sought out for his murder and the Pharoah was going to put him to death (civil justice). For David, he was king, so there wasn't a higher civil authority to carry out justice. God spared their lives for a greater purpose, but both men certainly deserved death by civil authorities for murder.

quote:

---

Besides, you are again making my point. Foo is the one who wants to proof text Genesis 9:6. Meaning that he is the one who wants to deny that there is any other context in the Bible that changes the interpretation of only what is printed in that one verse.

I'm the one pointing out that that can't be the case.

---

Again, I'm interpreting the Bible by the Bible.

If you want to show where the Bible doesn't allow for lawful killing, then I'd be happy to debate that with you, because there are many instances where not only is it lawful to kill in self-defense, just war, or for capital punishment, but God even commands it in many instances, meaning that such taking of life is differentiated from murder.

quote:

---

And you dismiss anyone else being able to subjectively interpret when it proves you wrong, as you then pivot to the text. That's the dishonesty. You can't decide if you're relying on the text or your interpretation, and you shift the standards when others prove you wrong.

---

There is always interpretation. The text has meaning, which is why it was written in the first place. Just like facts aren't brute but must be interpreted, the text has meaning that must be understood.

I'm interpreting the text according to the rest of the Bible, which I view as a single thread of revelation from the same source (God), which has a unifying message. Therefore, I don't interpret one verse on its own, but look at the larger context, just like we would for any writing we are trying to understand.

I'm not shifting standards. I quoted the text by itself with the understanding that it is talking about murder, and when challenged, I explained what was left unsaid previously: that within the larger context, it's speaking to murder.

Again, there was no pivot. Your ignorance of biblical hermeneutics is getting in your way again.

quote:

---

*ETA: none of those words has any reference to any exchange you've had with me. This is me observing how you interact with others.

---

Clearly you aren't very observant.

quote:

---

The words you quoted do not specify murder.

---

The context does, which is how the Bible has always intended to be read.

quote:

---

You initially tried to use the text to prove a point, and when your point was shredded, you pivoted to "interpretation" instead of the text itself. This is what you do, over and over again. When someone interprets, you pivot to the text and claim that is what must be discussed. When someone points out text you use doesn't work the way you intended, you abandon the prior standard and shift to your subjective interpretation.

---

I have not abandoned the standard for biblical interpretation. I have remained absolutely consistent here. I'm interpreting the Bible within the larger context which distinguishes between murder and other types of lawful killing, while you are reading the verse by itself.

quote:

---

That is Foo's game.

He constantly shifts between the language itself and whatever he makes up...because of the implication.

---

There is no pivot.

The text I quoted is speaking of murder. That understanding was challenged, so I explained my reasoning for it.

Clarification is not pivoting.

quote:

---

So we ignore the plain meaning of "shed blood" to avoid contradiction?

---

While the Bible is unique in the sense that it is the only writing that is God's written and preserved revelation, it's not unique in the sense that it's interpreted like any other writing is: within its own context.

If there were no other passages that help us understand God's understanding of justice, the "plain meaning" of Genesis 9:6 could be any taking of any life. However, context of the rest of Scripture demands it to be unlawful taking of life (murder).