User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2016/December

Moved by me, User:John Carter, from User:Tgeorgescu

RESONSE TO Why am I a god and a Son of God?

To- Tgeorgescu- I hope you don't mind me editing your page, but I'm new to this and I wanted to reply to your post above. If you want to delete it, fine. I just ask that you read it first. You say that you "don't want to be associated with absurdities of the Bible." That is a very unfortunate statement. The truth is there are no “absurdities” in the Bible, but some people think there are. It’s a most unfortunate statement first, because it shows your obvious distrust of the Bible and second, what that actually means for you unless that view changes. The Bible is the Word of God Himself. That is a statement of fact, and a statement of faith. But without delving into that further for this response, let me just stick to what you said the Bible says about you and everyone. First, the Bible does not say what you think it says. The conclusion you draw from Psalm 82:6 is taken by taking the passage out of context. Psalm 82 does not say that all humans are gods and Sons of God. A seemingly obscure passage of scripture must not be interpreted in a way to pervert or contradict clear passages. All Scripture must be understood in the sense it was used at its place and time, according to grammar and in context. Psalm 82 is talking about the corrupt rulers of Israel who had abused the trust given them by God. These were men appointed by God to represent Him as judges among His people. They were not “gods” not because they were divine beings themselves (hence the quotes) but because of their position as God’s representatives. The Psalm calls for judgment upon them because they were violating that trust by persecuting the innocent and tolerating wickedness. It calls for judgment on “rulers” of today who do the same. Now in that context read verses 6 and 7 together (or better yet, the whole thing) 6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”;

   you are all sons of the Most High.’

7 But you will die like mere mortals;

   you will fall like every other ruler.”

So this section of Scripture is not calling everyone “gods” or “sons of gods,” it is a reference only to the leaders or “rulers” of God’s people (i.e. his church).

Your interpretation of John 10:33-36 suffers from the same fundamental misunderstanding of the context. Jesus quotes this Psalm when confronted by Jewish leaders who were accusing Him of blasphemy by calling Himself the Son of God. The Jewish leaders would have understood the context and the reference Jesus was making where the Old Testament referred to mere human beings as “gods.” His point in quoting the Psalm was this: If the Old Testament referred to God’s earthly representatives - and mere human beings - as “gods,” what was their reason for being angry at God’s true Son from heaven – the ultimate representative of God on earth to His people – calling Himself the Son of God?

So the context and the usage of the term at that time and place show the true meaning to these passages. Additionally, this meaning does not contradict or pervert clear passages of scripture on the subject. These passages do not say that every human being is a god and Sons of God. Scripture is abundantly clear that there is only one Son of God and that is Jesus Christ. John 3:16 says: “16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” Also there is John 1:18 which says: “18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and[b] is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

See also Matthew 3:16 -17.   There are numerous references I could site but these are sufficient.  The reason for the capitalization of “Son” in “Son of God” is because of Jesus’ divine nature as God.   

Finally, Genesis 6:2,4 and Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 does not speak about “Sons of God” with a capital “Son.” They reference “sons of God” which is simply a reference to God’s believing children. Sadly, not everyone who hears the Scripture being preached believes (has faith) and therefore are God’s children. It takes more than hearing Scripture preached to be a child of God, it takes believing what it says. See Jesus discuss this in his telling of the parable of the sower in Matthew 13. In view of your comment above that “[you] don't want to be associated with the absurdities of the Bible.” I would strongly suggest you read it – all of it down to verse 23.— Preceding unsigned comment added by John637 (talk • contribs)

My point was: the Johanine standard for proving you are God is quoting Psalms 82:6. This observation is analytic-empirical correct in respect to the Gospel of John (it is a falsifiable statement). In order to repeat what I have stated above: I saw a BBC documentary wherein Francesca Stavrakopoulou was making the argument that that Psalm wasn't about men being divine, but that the Jewish god Yahweh was talking to other gods, battling other gods and killing them like people kill each other. The anonymous author of the Gospel of John simply picked a verse out of the context and turned it into an argument for showing that a man was divine. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply "Mr. T." I read the explanation of the point you said you were making, but candidly, I don't see that as the point you were making. At any rate, the gospel of John contains no "standard" for proving anyone other than God is God and that Jesus is God - the second person of the Trinity - the Son of God. John 20:31 "31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." The Bible doesn't lie. That too is a statement of fact and of faith. While John does not identify himself by name, there is ample evidence for those who believe in the inerrancy of scripture that the gospel of John was written by John. Peter, James and John were the closest of the apostles to Jesus. John's references himself as "the one whom Jesus loved" in his gospel at John 13:23-24 and at 19:26. It clearly was not Peter given the description of events at the Last Supper. And James died as a martyr before this gospel was written. Some people like to doubt and debate things in the Bible, rather than simply believe it - that is to their loss. The thing that amazes me is how so many so-called "Bible Scholars" don't believe what it says and really try in vein to attack its accuracy or truthfulness. I assure you, John did not "simply [pick] a verse out of the context and [turn] it into an argument for showing that a man was divine." Jesus showed He was divine all by Himself, by fulfilling all 300+ prophecies about Him in the Old Testament, through His many miracles and by His resurrection from the dead. John never had any interest in showing that a mere human being was divine and never made any such showing or argument. John was quoting Jesus, not making some bogus argument based on distortions. The only person taking things out of context to make that false claim is you. Things can always be taken out of context and distorted, but that doesn't alter the truth of what the Bible actually says. It is simply a delusion based on a twisting or manipulation of a couple of sentences that can't be reconciled with the rest of Scripture. People who do that are only deceiving themselves. (John637) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John637 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been reading the text under the assumption that Jesus has proven that he is God because in fact he was God. However, the Jews supposedly spoken to by Jesus worked under no such assumption. To them he was just another highfalutin preacher-magician. Upon the reliability of the Bible:

If I may be so bold, the reason you don’t see many credible scholars advocating for the “inerrancy” of the Bible is because, with all due respect, it is not a tenable claim. The Bible is full of contradictions and, yes, errors.

— Robin Ngo, Bible Secrets Revealed. Robert Cargill responds to viewers’ questions on the History Channel series

See also http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/01/3-things-i-would-like-to-see-evangelical-leaders-stop-saying-about-biblical-scholarship/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect to "Bible Secrets Revealed" (and you call that a reliable source?) and the other unbelieving scholars out there, how many of them are God? You misunderstand what I said. I never said any such scholars were credible, quite the contrary. The reason they are NOT credible, is because they don't have the sense to know that God doesn't lie. My source for the inerrancy of the Bible is God himself. This is a quote from Jesus praying in Gethsemane "17 Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth." John 17:17. And another quote from Jesus: "35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. "Matthew 24:35 His words are still here aren't they. There are no contradictions in the Bible and there are no errors. Not one. BTW- the History Channel is not a credible authority on Bible inerrancy. Inerrancy of the Bible is the ONLY tenable claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John637 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not a fact, pal. That's wishful thinking. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that you try to judge a priori a problem which can only be answered a posteriori. If those verses were kept and most of everything else would be changed to Advaita, you would still hold that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. "The Bible is the inerrant word of God" is a dogmatic statement. A true researcher asks "Can it be shown that the Bible is the inerrant word of God?". And by showing would understand empirical analysis, not preaching to the choir. Conflating the subjective (as in religious belief) with the objective (as in scientific fact) is a symptom of formal thinking trouble. Nobody denies your right to subjectively believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, but stating it as an objective fact inside an encyclopedia is ludicrous. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The Johannine interpretation of Psalm 82 regards quoting that verse as a valid argument for being God. That's what I meant. In Stavrakopoulou's interpretation it doesn't. Stavrakopoulou isn't the author of the Gospel of John, so it is not a contradiction that different people attribute different meanings to that verse. The Johannine interpretation leads to absurd consequences, that's also my point. Anyway, you should read and abide by WP:NOTFORUM. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I read your message and I have a couple of points. I was responding to your post about Son's of God. That post was your interpretation of selected Bible passages not an encyclopedic article. You gave your opinion that the Bible contained "absurdities." I responded with historical context and interpretation of scripture citing the Bible. You seem to like to float guidelines and rules and apply them to everyone else to shut them off except yourself. Your opinion that the Bible contains error is itself your subjective opinion and is not an objective fact. (BTW -- I did not edit someone else's comments responding to you here, I only added my own comments.) Before you lecture someone else about following the guidelines on talk pages you should follow them yourself. That reminds of something Jesus said ( and yes, He actually said it) “How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? Matthew 7:4. I stated nothing in an encyclopedia. I stated it in a talk page responding to your attacks on the Bible. In the course of this dialogue you have:

 1) said that Bible says in Psalm 82 that all human beings are gods. 
 2) said that Jesus says in John 10 that "all human beings who heard the Scripture talking to them (e.g. heard the Scripture being preached by a priest or pastor inside a church) are gods."
 3) conclude that the Bible says that  "All humans are thus gods and Sons of God."
 4) stated that the Bible contains "absurdities"
 5) stated that "The anonymous author of the Gospel of John simply picked a verse out of the context and turned it into an argument for showing that a man was divine."
 6) stated that the gospel of John contains a standard for people to prove they are gods and that such a standard is found in Psalm 82
 7)  that it is an assumption that Jesus is God, disregarding all the objective proof that He is God, fulfilling 300+ prophecies made over thousands of years perfectly, raising the dead, walking on water, curing the lame, giving sight to the bind, and rising from the dead Himself 
 8) You express your skepticism that Jesus ever spoke to the Jews
 9)  stated  that The Bible is full of contradictions and, yes, errors.   Based on a series on the History Channel.  (No doubt for you, that is a “credible” source).

None of those views of yours are “objective facts” and they are not derived from any “empirical analysis.” It seems like for you, any source about the Bible is valid, except the Bible itself, as long as you agree with it. That is not anything unique to you per se, but it is obviously your bias and it influences what you will accept as reliable. I am well aware that not everyone believes the Bible is true – that is their loss and the truth will come out in the end. I’m glad I know where I stand. But what people believe about the Bible does not change facts that are true. I’m not going to deny the truth when responding to attacks on the Bible. I am going to respond with the truth. The Bible defends itself – it always has and it always will. My point is, if you can spout all of this nonsense about the Bible and what you think it says – and claim that a gospel writer took a Psalm out of context to make a silly argument that contradicts the rest of scripture, then I can set the record straight. And I will as long as you persist in claiming your bias and opinions are objective facts suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. BTW: I check out the link you suggested http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/01/3-things-i-would-like-to-see-evangelical-leaders-stop-saying-about-biblical-scholarship/ . I got a good laugh out of it. There they claim that there that there is little archaeological evidence showing Israel’s origins: the period of slavery in Egypt, the mass departure of Israelite slaves from Egypt. Really? Well how do they explain the celebration of the Jewish Passover that has taken place for thousands of years ever since? Has this been some massive conspiracy (by Jews who BTW don’t believe in Jesus) to fool everyone into thinking that some Exodus happened that really never did? Have all these generations been participating in a fraud for thousands of years? Did the Israelites just think it was a cool story to pass down to every generation since? If they never were in slavery in Eygpt, never fled in the Exodus, never went to Mount Sinai, then where did the Ten Commandments comes from? Better yet, who was the genius that wrote them? And you think this web-link is a credible source? So who is being "ludicrous” now?John637 (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

There isn't and there cannot be objective proof of someone being God: science cannot prove your pet theology, in certain falsifiable respects it can disprove it, though. Peter Enns is an evangelical scholar, but without the horse blinders and without the gag. What he states there is what is taught as fact in all major universities. The only ones amazed by it are those who never entered a secular university or a mainline divinity school in order to learn about the Bible. A fundamentalist will never find problems in his own holy book, but will find plenty of problems in the holy books of other religions. About the History Channel text, it is an interview with an academic, a Bible scholar, and in the respective shows there were interviewed Bible scholars even more established than he is. In fact, what they stated there isn't particularly new or revolutionary, but it is unknown to the ordinary churchgoers, since they don't know what universities and mainline divinity schools teach about the Bible:

Ehrman, Bart (2010). "A Historical Assault on Faith". Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them). HarperCollins e-books. pp. 3–4. ISBN 9780061173943. My hunch is that the majority of students coming into their first year of seminary training do not know what to expect from courses on the Bible. ... Most students expect these courses to be taught from a more or less pious perspective, showing them how, as future pastors, to take the Bible and make it applicable to people's lives in their weekly sermons.
Such students are in for a rude awakening. Mainline Protestant seminaries in this country are notorious for challenging students' cherished beliefs about the Bible—even if these cherished beliefs are simply a warm and fuzzy sense that the Bible is a wonderful guide to faith and practice, to be treated with reverence and piety. These seminaries teach serious, hard-core Bible scholarship. They don't pander to piety. They are taught by scholars who are familiar with what German- and English-speaking scholarship has been saying about the Bible over the past three hundred years. ...
The approach taken to the Bible in almost all Protestant (and now Catholic) mainline seminaries is what is called the "historical-critical" method. It is completely different from the "devotional" approach to the Bible one learns in church. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

T – Just because people refuse to see the nose in front of their face, doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Romans 1:20 says “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” Psalm 14:1 says “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God. …” It is no surprise that you cite to works entitled “A Historical Assault on faith.” Though I see you didn’t even try to answer the questions I raised about the Exodus of which your so called “scholars” said there was little evidence. I challenge you to find events (not artifacts mind you – events) occurring during that time frame which are more well documented and better memorialized than the Exodus. Assaults on God’s Word and faith in Him have been ongoing since the man’s fall into sin. Satan’s temptation to Eve started with “Did God really say . . .” Genesis 3:1. Some things never change. But all of these assaults will fail. “18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it.” Matthew 16:18. God’s word will accomplish the purpose for which he sent it. See Isaiah 55:10-11. As I said before, the Bible contains no errors and no contradictions. What does occur, however, is people manufacturing false contradictions (like you did misinterpreting Psalm 82 and John 10), by taking certain words or phrases out of context or confusing law passages with gospel passages. Also as I said before as well, notwithstanding the “historical critical” method, the ONLY tenable position is the inerrancy of scripture. The historical critical view frankly denies the authority of Scripture. That method rejects the verbal inspiration of the Bible and opens the door for people, such as yourself, to say that the Bible contains mistakes, inaccuracies and contradictions. That method rejects the idea that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels that bear their names. It is a method of interpretation that leads people to look at Bible passages that are not popular today and say, “It would not be loving to take these words literally, so let’s see how the Spirit of God might lead us to understand and apply these words differently in our day and age.” This approach is consistent with what St. Paul described in 2 Timothy 4:3: “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” All I can do is testify to others about God’s Word: that all of it is true (John 17:17), that all of Scripture is inspired (2 Timothy 3:16) and that the words the human biblical authors wrote were the words they received from God (1 Corinthians 2:13). God does not lie and makes no mistakes. Do I think that will be enough for those that demand scientific proof? No. But that is not what faith is and that is not what the Bible is about. “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”;” 1 Corinthians 3:19. No one who does not treat the Bible with the authority it deserves or who refuses to recognize what it is, God’s inspired Word,” is qualified to be a “scholar” about it. John637 (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Pornography Addiction

Guess what - you are unable to provide even one name example of an individual to has been "damaged of pornography addiction". You cannot even do that much - and Wikipedia articles need to be backed up with data from reliable sources - that article has no such thing.

Nobody has ever been damaged by accessing XXX material. What about the cameramen, the technical crew, the people who own XXX companies that distribute XXX material - why have they not been "damaged" ?

Just for that, I have subscribed to 2 more XXX websites - and guess what, I have not been "damaged". And I am not addicted either - because I listen more to pop music than I do accessing XXX material (since 1969).

You cannot even cite 1 name example of an individual that has been "damaged" by accessing XXX material. The Wikipedia article in question is disgusting and filthy. Dickie birdie (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this Wikipedia Editor is pure filth. He's just indefinately banned someone from editing on Wikipedia just for writing the above message on his talk page. This Wikipedia is vile pure scum. The person he banned from Wikipedia has made thousands of useful edits on hundreds and hundreds of articles and he's been banned just because of a Wikipedia article that is pure propaganda and nothing at all to do with objectivity or with the building of an encyclopedia article that is supported by references. This person probably lives his life by thinking he is superior to other people because he's on kneepads to the word pornography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.66.44 (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't ban anyone, I did not ask for his/her ban. If you look at my editing of that article, I was usually on the "pornography addiction is unproven" side, but all this in moderation and acknowledging that there are more views than mine. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Nuke54

Hello Tgeorgescu I did not understand why you erased my additions to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_Bethlehem. The external link I included is to a Google maps web site. It could have been posted as a screen shot, but I am concerned that a screen shot could violate Google’s copyrights. This astronomical discovery is so recent that there are no other citations available. "Five Millennium (-1999 to +3000) Canon of Solar Eclipses Database and the charts provided by eEclipser ©2006-2016 Xavier M. Jubier and Google Earth".. Nuke54 (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

You should read WP:NOR, WP:IRS, WP:VER. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm

I hope i finally figured out how to reply to messages. This would be easier for the layman like me if there were a simple reply button in the messages part... (maybe thats the point huh? Lol ok) I just wanted to say thank you for your explanation. It made perfect sense and now seems rather obvious. Another person left me messages saying i was not constructive and i am vandalizing and then threatening to have me blocked (believe it or not in that scenario, it comes off as a threat...) and because I didn't get it, I assumed they were in fact vandals and crazy ta' boot. Being knowledgeable in tech stuff is one thing but knowing how to speak to ppl is an asset as well. Thank you for helping me understand by explaining or pointing out my error. Smmm7 (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

More reasons for the warnings you got are: deleting properly referenced text without a good explanation for doing it; and adding POV-pushing text, especially without citing any academic reference for it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Star of Bethlehem

I'm very concerned that many socks are editing the article, and probably the same people for the past five years. I'm sure you have such suspicions as well. Right now, I'm currently editing on mobile, but I will start an investigation as soon as I regain computer access. When the investigation is over, there will defiantly be fewer edits on the article. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, the Hutchison books are definitely not reliable sources, we cannot use them inside Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu If you're not aware, this SPI case has been closed and archived. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)