Exodus 18:11 is clearly a reference to gods of other peoples... particularly the Egyptian gods. "I know now that the LORD is greater than all other gods, because he rescued his people from the oppression of the proud Egyptians." How can that possibly be about money or food??

yes it is a reference to the gods of others people, but throughout the Bible, God repeatedly states that these are false gods with no real power. they are simply gods built by human hands.

@ CdreChris - The reason we are tested, just like silver is exposed to extreme heat, is to remove impurities from the whole, not to see if we are somehow worthy--because we aren't. Jesus: "I am come to save sinners, not the righteous." And I did have a supernatural experience, which was exactly what I needed to confirm that I was right to trust God. He will give everyone what they need to believe in him--IF they ask him. But like the living sacrifice that I am, with a human nature and free will, I have a tendency to jump off the altar. The good news is, God knew how we are and made provisions for our sin and for our tendency to turn away from him.

@dexter morgan and Zachattack: I believe that some of the "gods" that people tend to believe in, in addition to self-sufficiency, money, power, self-righteousness, and fake gods, are demons that actually have power, but not over those who decide of their own free will to trust in the promised messiah, Jesus. The name Jesus is Joshua in Hebrew, which means Ya Shua, or God saves. Emmanuel means "God with us." Christ means the promised messiah, the savior of Israel. And he is all of those things.

The census that occurred at the time of Jesus's birth?

The absurdity of requiring people to return to a city of origin for a census... and it gets better. There are no Roman records of such a census... the only records of such a thing are from the Bible, (Luke and Matthew), and a single Jewish source.

There may or may not have been a local census, but it certainly didn't require people to travel to a far off city to be counted. To even suggest this is grossly absurd.

And while there are some apparent inconsistencies in the Bible, the message has been preserved. And disagreements among Christians over such things as was the Earth created in seven literal days do not affect the message of salvation from our sins and eternal friendship with God, starting the moment you admit your sins, make the decision to turn your back on them, and accept Jesus' payment for your sins.

@ Jack - Many of the events in the Bible were not supported by archaeological data until centuries after the events, but evidence continues to be found to this very day. And apparent logical inconsistencies become clear as we gain insight into the world of those days.

@ Jack - Check out this examination of the claims against the census being taken: http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/editors-choice/EC1205W3C.htm

In regards to censuses... yes, there were censuses... but the idea of forcing everyone to migrate to the location of their birth I understand is not supported by any Roman historical document and is to my knowledge indeed unprecedented and unrepeated in *any* census. Besides, it's a very unlikely and costly idea... what would be gained by such a maneuver? I mean, other than the religious expediency (to satisfy a prophesy) of explaining how Jesus as being born in Bethlehem - never mind that he was known as Jesus of Nazareth.

Judges states that the coming messiah will a Nazirite - which includes not drinking wine - and therefore this was an unfulfilled prophesy - because clearly Jesus drank wine... Matthew refers to the fulfillment of a prophesy that he will be known as a Nazarene [as he was]... except that there is no record of such a prophesy outside of the New Testament itself.

Mujus: The amount of "possible" and "maybe" in that article are kind of amusing.

The historical sources don't back up the census, and merely saying its possible doesn't prove anything.

No contemporary Roman sources have records of any such census (in fact, Roman censuses only had to do with Roman citizens, of which Joeseph, Mary, and little Jesus were not).

You speak in generalities, but provide little specifics. "evidence" continues to be found. What evidence. And how is it significant? Speaking in overly broad terms doesn't do anything for the ideas you're putting out there.

@Dexter - I did say *anything* that separates man from God. That would include the false gods of the Egyptians.

@Jack, you speak with authority about all Roman records. Are you the definitive experton every Roman record ever found? No? Then how do you speak with such authority?

Where in the Bible does it say these other gods don't exist? As Dexter says, the references are not to money or food, so where does it say these other gods don't exist?

@ Jack - What is your source for this statement: "(in fact, Roman censuses only had to do with Roman citizens, of which Joeseph, Mary, and little Jesus were not)"?

Also, belief/trust/a decision to trust in God is a personal one that you are free to make. There is no need to continually look for excuses to distrust God's existence and love, but there is no end of excuses if you don't want to trust God.

Mujus, there is no God. You might as well be putting your trust in the Tooth Fairy.

And that you ask that question about the census shows your ignorance of Roman government. Roman censors were appointed for five year terms to keep track of citizens of Rome. A description is in the works of Cicero.

I see it is a mistake to try to engage you rationally, because you're going to fall back on "It doesn't matter what the evidence says, I believe!". I did try, I suppose.

Draugnar: Of course not. But that such records could possibly exist is no proof.

And the description of the "census' in the bible is absurd, as previously stated.

You're looking for any excuse how Luke and Matthew could be not full of shit, and its really not holding up.

I'm not saying it isn't (Deist with Theist leanings, here, rmember?). I'm just saying you shouldn't make a statement with such authority that *no* such documents exist unless you are at least in the position to assert that, with good authroity, there is next to no chance of such documents existing because you are a foremost expert in the field and have seen none to date. I'm a software developer and expert in my field so I can speak with authority on matters involving that subject, but I wouldn't dream of speakign with authority on matters regarding archeology and ancient Roman history.

ok heres my question for Christians. Why do you worship to Jesus? Jesus, as you all say is god in human form, so why do you say "our lord jesus christ" shouldn't it just be our lord god? God spoke to Moses in a burning bush, but he worshiped god, not the bush. Meanwhile if Jesus is not the same as god, and deserves to be worshiped, how exactly is that not violating the first commandment of putting no gods before "the father?"

@SC, we believe that Christ, the person, was fully God and fully man. God in the bush was God in a bush; the bush was not God, but only contained God. On the other hand, Christ WAS (and IS) God, as well as being a person.
This is, of course, very unintuitive and hard to really grasp, much like the Trinity itself, but anyway, that doctrine is the reason for our worshiping Christ.
Also, the first commandment does not say "The Father," as I'm sure you're aware.

Regards.

Trinity was voted into Christianity during the first Council of Nicaea in 325CE. There were a large minority who did not believe Jesus was NOT divine and knew the "spirit" was the Angel Gabriel. (consequently this is what Muslims also believe).

Trinity is simply the forced idea of the ruling party of the time when they were more concerned with bringing everyone under one banner to end sectarian violence. However, all this did was give those rulers the ability to destroy and kill everything that opposed their view.

In reality, trinity is not part of OT and only mentioned once in the NT; God is only One (according to Jews/Muslims and many other Christian sects as well as other smaller religions).

If I was a wagering man, I'd say the highest probability is that Trinity is simply part of the larger scope of Roman influence and changes to Christianity as it was forming. Just like December 25th as Christmas, Jesus rising on Sunday, etc...

I'd leave this as my only post as I don't want to get into a pointless argument with those who refuse to learn the history of their own religion.

*** oops typo.. remove the "NOT" in the 2nd line. sorry.

superchunk,

I understand you don't want to post again, and that's fine. But I would just point out -- plenty of us are familiar with the history of the doctrine of the Trinity. Even those of us who hold the Bible (and not church councils) as the ultimate authority in Christian doctrine, however, keep coming back to it because, although you're right that it's rarely spelled out in black and white in the NT, it's implicit EVERYWHERE in the NT. ("Before Abraham was, I Am.")
I suggest you read a vaguely decent Christian theologian or writer on this subject, or even a first-rate skeptical writer. Whatever source you are reading has precious little familiarity with Christian theology or the arguments used to support it.

Regards.

oh yay a quote from the book of John... the book most historians argue was written by multiple people and has major differences with the other three books surrounding Jesus' life.

I'm sorry, but its hard to put much faith into a single quote from a series of books that greatly contradicts each other about events. Especially when you can pull other quotes out that clearly show Jesus thought of God as a separate entity and his God, not himself... such as "Jesus saith unto her, 'Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say to them, l ascend to my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.", also from John to at least keep it in the same book.

Committing a bit of a fallacy there, aren't we superchunk? I'm sure you do find the book of John unreliable (and the rest of the NT too, to varying degrees). But we were discussing whether Christians base their faith in the Trinity entirely on the later councils. The quote shows that, no, a case can be made, to say the very least, from those documents considered by Christians to be scripture. That you don't find it scripture, or at all reliable, is pretty irrelevant, then, isn't it?

Also, the quote was of course representative. A thoroughgoing case for the Trinity would / could cite passages from almost every book of the NT. And yes, Christ's relationship to the Father is well recognized by Christian doctrine to be complicated. That's part of the doctrine of the Trinity, actually.

Regards.

@superchunk - Christ was very careful throughout to *not* appear to blaspheme in public by calling himself the Son of Man, but when pressed by hsi apostles in private, he admitted to be the Messiah and the Son of God.

Of course, the Son sent the Spirit and the Father sent the Son. One could say that there was one God. He decided to create another God in the form of the Son and call Himself the Father. This Son was a part of His own essence (In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God) and therefore one with Him. The Son then called forth the Spirit to guide us in His absence, also from the same essence and therefore one with God the Father and God the Son. As a result, there was only one true God in the OT. Jehovah or Yahweh or whatever name yo want to use was all there was in the OT/Torah. The creation of a physical incarnation of Himself required God to put a part of Himself in that incarnation.

The issue is that I can find an equal number of quotes from NT (and especially the OT or Tanakh) that show evidence contrary to the idea of Trinity, like the one I posted above.

However, I do agree that its meaningless to this thread whether I hold any validity to the books mentioned or not.

To me, a historical study of Christianity at the time of the Council of Nicaea, as I pointed out above, demonstrates this confusion in the NT about Trinity and the fact that had the opposing minorities writings not been destroyed or their sects abolished, we'd still have a very large segment of Christianity that did not worship Jesus as part of God or the God.

Honestly, the idea of the Tiunal God is not all important to Christianity anyhow. Christ came as the Messiah, the Redeemer for our sinful lives, and to be our advocate before God on the judgment day. He lived sinless, died for our sins and was raised to prove the power of God. But he didn't have to be God for that to happen.

@ jack-- How rational is your anti-supernatural bias? Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You appear to have a knee-jerk reaction to discount any evidence that doesn't support your own points, and then you accuse believers of the same thing that you are doing. But there is no end of argument, as the bible says, and it also says that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. I've seen over and over again that those who are so vehemently against God have emotional roots for their rejection of Him, although they may cloak it in terms of logic or whatever bolsters their position in their own minds.

But it's not too late. God is waiting with open arms. Come to Jesus. He's waiting for you. He knows your pain. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PANiveIKVX0