navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » I need to know how you feel about "jesus"
Philosophy 101
Post A Reply Post New Topic I need to know how you feel about "jesus" Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189
Pennsylvania

0 posted 2004-01-18 05:11 PM



I've seen many ideals, ideas, and philosophies tossed around about the man,,,how do you feel?
Personally, I feel he was a teacher,,,and maybe a role model nothing more....
I know, I've heard he gave his life for me,,,but, so did alot of men I never knew, in our wounderful armed forces,,,,,
So , please,,share your personal thoughts and ideas,,not just dogma, and wrote statements,,,,
Thank you all
Michelle


I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike

© Copyright 2004 Michelle Albright - All Rights Reserved
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

1 posted 2004-01-18 06:28 PM


Hi Michelle,

I believe that Jesus not only died for us, but that he died for our sins and was resurrected to secure our justification. His death without the resurrection would have done nothing for us. I believe that only Jesus could die for our sins because he was the only one who didn't have to die for sins of his own. The spotless lamb, if you will, foreshadowed in the Jewish sacrifices in the Temple.

Jesus, the Christ has been called many things, many of these from his own mouth:

Advocate, Alpha and Omega, Author and Finisher of Faith, Bread of Life, Corner-stone, Counsellor, Dayspring, Deliverer, Everlasting Father, The First Fruits, God, The Good Shepherd, Great High Priest, Heir of all things, Holy One, I Am, Jehovah, Judge of Israel, King of the Ages, King of the Jews, King of Kings, Light of the World, Lamb of God, Lion of the tribe of Judah, Lord of All, Lord of Lords, Man of Sorrows, Mediator, Messiah, Mighty God, Morning Star, Prince of Peace, Redeemer, The Resurrection and The Life, Rose of Sharon, Saviour, Son of David, Son of God, Son of Man, True Light, True Vine, Truth, Word, and Word of God.

One cannot read his words and his own testimony of himself of who he says he is without concluding that he is either who he says he is, or delusional at best or a liar at worst. He didn't leave the door open to conclude that he was just a good teacher, a prophet or a good example to emulate. He made some pretty outrageous claims about himself. And if someone doesn't believe he is who he says he is, then why would someone want to follow or emulate him anyway?

Well, those are my thoughts!


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
2 posted 2004-01-18 07:53 PM


I believe in the cardinal claims about Jesus ...

that he is the son of God, and the only savior of the world.  I believe that he died for our sins and moral offenses against the one God.  I believe that he rose again, bodily, from the dead, and ascended into Heaven.  I believe that he will return to judge individuals and nations and rule the world by divine right.  Our present forms of Governments, failing and faltering as they are, reflect this eschatological need.


But as to Jesus being merely a teacher, and role model.  If he was only that, then he was a bad one.  He claimed to be so much, that if he is not, then he deluded and disappointed, and lied.  He claimed to be so much, that this would be the ultimate arrogance ... to claim to be God, and turn out to be another bland moralist.  I agree with Mr. Lewis when he said we have three choices ... Jesus was a Liar, a Lunatic, or Lord.


Stephen.

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
3 posted 2004-01-19 09:29 AM


He had a lot to say, and what he said was basically the origin for a next "step" in the ever continuing evolution of man-made religions.

"If this grand panorama before me is what you call God...then God is not dead."

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
4 posted 2004-01-19 10:03 AM


A revolutionary man/leader whose ideals were stolen and corrupted by Paul which then became the basis for a religion that goes against the very 'law' he and his disciples stood for and were trying to restore.
Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
5 posted 2004-01-19 12:17 PM


"A revolutionary man/leader whose ideals were stolen and corrupted by Paul which then became the basis for a religion that goes against the very 'law' he and his disciples stood for and were trying to restore."

~ Interesting concept, would you care to elaborate please?

Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189
Pennsylvania
6 posted 2004-01-19 12:56 PM


Thank you all for you interesting views,,,I agree with opeth,,,aenimal,,,plese tell us more,,,,
liar, lunatic, or lord,,,,,,,what a choice
Michelle

I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
7 posted 2004-01-19 01:08 PM


As for the liar, lunatic, or lord options, I do believe those are limited. He could of just been mistaken or taken-out-of-context. Do we have Jesus' words on tape? Do we have his own writings of his own words or do we have a reporting of what he said?

Has anyone heard of the Haley's Comet routine? That routine applies here.

"If this grand panorama before me is what you call God...then God is not dead."

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
8 posted 2004-01-19 01:25 PM


Michelle:

quote:
Thank you all for you interesting views,,,I agree with opeth,,,aenimal,,,plese tell us more,,,,



Yes, I would actually like to hear more also.  However, I imagine that such views of Jesus as a mere aphoristic moralist, whose teachings became distorted by later religionists, who altered the whole history for political reasons, is based upon a certain school of study.

That school / method is reflected in what was called the "Jesus Seminar".  It was based upon 19th century theology and philosophy, heavily influenced by Renaisannce Humanism.  If you're not familiar with the flow of philosophy which came out of the "Enlightenment", it is best summed up in the statement that "man is the measure of all things".

But if man is the measure of all things, and we live in a hermetically closed universe, then there can be no such thing as the "supernatural" ... or nothing coming in from the outside, so to speak.

It is this assumption, which many of these historians accepted uncritically.  They used it as a procrustean bed, upon which to place the New Testament texts.  If anything in the narrative didn't fit their philosophy (ie... anything miraculous, or not merely a social/ political move) then they confidently amputated it from the text.  That's why their version of the New Testament is color coded as to what was actually said or not said ... what was actually done or not done.

That's why all the miraculous claims of the New Testament that Jesus made, including his own nature in reference to God, as God's son, had to have alternate explanations.  After all, it COULDN'T actually mean what it said, since such things CAN'T be real.  So, speculations and reconstructions about Paul and other ecclesial figures altering the history began to be accepted ... not so much on their merits, but upon the impossibility of the contrary.  When a philosophy disallows certain answers, other answers look most credible, no matter what they are.


I would encourage you not to take such assumptions about the gospels to be fact, without looking closer.  There is other scholarship that affirms the traditional understanding that the gospels are historically reflective of what happened, and what was said.  


quote:
liar, lunatic, or lord,,,,,,,what a choice


If the texts reflect what happened, then it does appear that that's what we're left with.  Jesus was anything but another moralist ... the world had plenty of those before Christ came, and good ones too.  That would seemingly compliment him, but in light of what he did and said, it is only a patronizing reaction to him.  If he's not the son of God, then he's anything but a good example.

I'm not saying that appreciation of Jesus' moral teaching is not a good transitory path to understanding him ... I'm more talking about making it the final estimation of who he is.  It is there, that such an answer cannot work.


Stephen.        

Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189
Pennsylvania
9 posted 2004-01-19 01:25 PM


I always found it odd, that "he" never wrote anything himself,,,"they" say the writers of the bible, were divinly guided,,,,but,,,,they wrote most of the stuff hundreds of years after "his" death,,,thats the equivilent,,,roughly,,,,of say,,,the pope doing Lincolns memoirs,,,,,,,
Michelle

I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
10 posted 2004-01-19 01:34 PM


quote:
I always found it odd, that "he" never wrote anything himself,,,"they" say the writers of the bible, were divinly guided,,,,but,,,,they wrote most of the stuff hundreds of years after "his" death,,,thats the equivilent,,,roughly,,,,of say,,,the pope doing Lincolns memoirs,,,,,,,



I think there's good evidence that the entire NT was completed within the first century ... actually compiled, because much was carried by oral tradition (typical of that culture and time), and writings as well.  Seeing that much (not all) of the NT was written from eye-witness accounts, it is hardly the equivalent of the Pope writing about Lincoln.  I'll try to get you some more specific info on the whole process of transmission.  F.F. Bruce wrote a couple of excellent books about the history of the NT.


Stephen.

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
11 posted 2004-01-19 01:44 PM


Just remember, Michelle, to take what you read with a "grain of salt." A christian author of christian books is naturally biased towards his/her beliefs. Same goes with authors writing anti-christian books as well. The key is having the ability to sift through what is fact and what is conjecture and opinion.  And of course, if the foundation is unsound to begin with, then even the best built structures, although appearing to be quite sound, are flawed too.

"If this grand panorama before me is what you call God...then God is not dead."

Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189
Pennsylvania
12 posted 2004-01-19 04:22 PM


granted Stephanos,
Having read the NT,,along with the rest of the bible,,,,I find that the "eye witness" accounts are from how they saw it,,not necessarily how it was,,,
As for writing styles, good ole King James slaughtered the translations,,,
Men, both religious and political, have made changes here and there to their benifit at the time,,,,so it's hard to get a straight accounting of all events.
Michelle

I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
13 posted 2004-01-19 05:35 PM


Michelle

quote:
I find that the "eye witness" accounts are from how they saw it,,not necessarily how it was,,,



How did you come to this conclusion?  Do you mean you have read that gospels are historically flawed, or do you simply "feel" it is so?


quote:
As for writing styles, good ole King James slaughtered the translations



First of all, good ole King James didn't translate anything, he merely authorized and ordered the translation effort ... hence it was subsequently named "The King James Version".  

As for writing styles ... The version is pretty well done, by the standards of 1611 English.  If you mean that the language of the KJV is archaic and hard to understand, I agree.  That's because we live in 2004.  


Just what exactly do you mean by "slaughtered the translations"?  The scholars who translated the collection of manuscripts known as the "Textus Receptus", along with the Latin Vulgate, and the Septuagint (a Greek Translation of the Old Testament) simply put the Greek and Latin into their own Language.  If you are suggesting that they mistranslated ... I would like some references.  Offer some proof that they mishandled the manuscripts.  I have studied this out, and assure you it isn't true.


However, it is true that more manuscripts were discovered after the 1611 translation ... Alexandrian manuscripts which date back much closer to the time of Christ and his disciples ... so that some of the more modern translations are actually better than the KJV.  But all in all, the KJV is an excellent translation.  I personally don't like to read it because the hithers, withers, thees and thous, tend to trippeth me up.    


quote:
Men, both religious and political, have made changes here and there to their benifit at the time,,,,so it's hard to get a straight accounting of all events.


This is something that is often said, and uncritically repeated, but has never been proven.  Out of all the manuscripts, there are very few errors in transmission, much less deliberate changes of the texts.  Because the later manuscripts can still be compared to the earliest ones, such changes would be easily spotted.  And out of all the changes known to exist, none of them change or effect any of the fundamental claims or doctrines of Christianity.  They are all minor variations.   So, the statement you have made is simply untrue.  Of course if you want to give me references, or try to show otherwise, I will take a look.  


It's really not so hard to get a "straight account" of what happened.  Especially since there is good reason to believe that what is written in the Bible provides such an account.  


I wouldn't just assume these things you've heard are true.  I agree with Opeth, it pays to look for yourself.  


Stephen.      

Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189
Pennsylvania
14 posted 2004-01-19 06:16 PM


Stephen,,,,,I didnt ask for people to pick every word I say apart,,,,,,I asked for their feelings on the subject,,,think we could stick to that?
I know what my feelings are,,,,,and my beliefs,,,,,
michelle

I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike

Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189
Pennsylvania
15 posted 2004-01-19 06:19 PM


and, btw stephen,,,,no, I dont feel they misinturpreted,,,the lingadee of the day made things a bit different,,,
ie,,,shambles,,,,,,in modern lingadee is concidered a  mess,,,,in King Jmaes day,,,it was a meat market,,,,,,and since you are so well versed, I'm sure you know the verse I'm speaking of
Michelle

I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike

muslimah
New Member
since 2004-01-12
Posts 8

16 posted 2004-01-19 06:42 PM


as salaam alaikum,

as a muslim, i believe that jesus was a prophet. he is the same jesus that christians believe in, but not the son of God or in any way a part of God.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

17 posted 2004-01-19 07:22 PM


Michelle,

Stephen was merely giving you his studied opinion to questions that you had raised. If you don't really want those opinions, then why ask in the first place? You asked about Jesus. You brought into question the validity of the Scriptures. You brought translations into the conversation.

You, of course, can agree or disagree with him and others, but you shouldn't ask and then say that you didn't raise the issues yourself in the first place by merely saying that you are looking for "feelings". What does that mean anyway? Nobody here responded with their "feelings" about Jesus.

The Philosophy Forum is not about "feelings", per se. It's about philosophy, thinking, arguing points, putting forth reasoned arguments for a particular point of view, debating. When someone makes an assertion, they are ususally going to be asked to back it up in some way, i.e., what are you basing your assertions upon?

If you just want to engage in conversation without in-depth analysis of statements, and possible intellectual challenges to those statements that you make, then maybe the Feelings Forum is the venue that would better suit that desire.

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
18 posted 2004-01-19 08:02 PM


Michelle, Sweeheart... stop being such a shmuck. ANYTIME you say, or write anything, you are asking for those words to be interpreted, or mis-interpreted, or ignored completely. It happens to all of us... that is the price to pay for having our own opinions.
Now, as to the question...
I firmly believe that Jesus was sent here to deliver "His" people from the bondage of sin. By doing so, he performed many "miracles" that could very easily be explained by modern day science, however, were not so easily explained in biblical times. Does that make him divine, or does it make him a space traveller who used Star Trek-type medical practices to cure everyone? Not having been there, I am forced to go on my beliefs that he is of a divine nature, even though He Himself never laid claim to that distinction. He chose to call Himself the Son of Man, and NOT the Son of G-d as is the title He has been labeled with by Christians.
As far as my thoughts on the bible, I think that it is a fine place to begin to one's faith. I do not feel that it is the be all and end all of the Christian faith, as it was written by men, and it was written by men (the New Testament, anyhow) who had their own biases and agendas. It is thought that at least a couple of the gospels were written up to 100 years AFTER the events they are describing. And we all know that oral histories that are told more than once are not worth too much. And anything that was written more than a few hours or days after the event isn't worth too much, as the human mind begins to forget and begins to change events as time gets further along... we TRY to remember things as they were, however we don't.
Another thing that was brought up was the fact that his words and ideas were corrupted by Paul... That goes along with my thoughts on everyone having their own agendas... HOWEVER... one thing that not many people (even the "devout" Christians) is that in the 4th Century (I think) the Romans had decided, rightly, that they were not going to be able to maintain their control over the known universe with their mightier swords... so they decided to use the even mightier religion of the masses. Most priests of that day were political appointees, NOT religious. And the Holy Roman Church instituted the practice of Confession as a way to keep their ears to the ground, as it were. With the populace going to the Priest and telling them everything, the priest was able to keep abreast on all of the events happening in and arounsd his parrish, which he then passed up the ladder. The Holy Roman Empire also began to bastardize the concepts of the Christian faith ever so slightly. All it took was a tweak here, and a twist there, and by the time it gets 200 years down the road, the world has all but forgotten exactly what it was that Jesus came here to tell us... and we are left with what the Holy Roman Empire wanted us to believe. Now, take those twists and add 1500 years... We are not being taught the words, and ideals that Jesus spent 4 years spreading anymore than we are taught the truth about ANYTHING historical.
Just my thoughts.

Cause in my dreams it's always there
The evil face that twists my mind
And brings me to despair.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

19 posted 2004-01-19 09:16 PM


In my search for an English translation that was based on a literal word for word from the Original languages, I was impressed with the exacting methods used in putting this version together:
http://www.concordant.org/expohtml/TheScriptures/intclv1.html

I ordered and received the New Testament and will order the Old Testament shortly.

I am slowly getting over the awkward feel of sentence structure not being what our English language ears are used to, but I like knowing that I am actually reading consistent literal renderings of the original words.


Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
20 posted 2004-01-20 12:38 PM


time restraints..will answer later on tonight or tomorrow
Severn
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704

21 posted 2004-01-20 12:50 PM


quote:
Michelle, Sweeheart... stop being such a shmuck


Ringo, I don't feel that's a particularly appropriate thing for you to say. Do you know Michelle? If so, I can see how it could be lighthearted. But when I first read it - it seemed offensive to me.

Thought I'd mention it.

K

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
22 posted 2004-01-20 12:59 PM


Severn- I appreciate your thoughts, and I truly appreciate the fact that you are standing up for another member of Passions...
Michelle and I have been very close friends for a while, and I haev actually called her worse to her face... of course, if you only knew what she calls me
lol

Cause in my dreams it's always there
The evil face that twists my mind
And brings me to despair.

Severn
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704

23 posted 2004-01-20 01:03 AM


I just thought I'd check...personal attacks, you a mod etc etc...

thanks for responding to me, I appreciate it.

K

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
24 posted 2004-01-20 01:52 AM


And, actually, Severn... now that I spend a little time thinking about it...
You proved the point I was attempting to make to her.
Thank you.

Cause in my dreams it's always there
The evil face that twists my mind
And brings me to despair.

Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189
Pennsylvania
25 posted 2004-01-20 07:13 AM


Muslimah......Thank you for your views, and as a new comer to Passions, I welcome you


Denise,,,,,I dig what youre saying,,,,,but, he had given his views already,,,I'm still learning that people revisit and reply several times,,,,as you have here,,,,,alsso, it's cool you got the version cumfy to your ears,,,it makes sudying anything easier when you have a firm grasp of the language. Thank you


Ringo my dear, who asked you? KIDDING! I hear where you're comming from, and I realy like your response. And thats hockey puck, not shmuck....


Severn, thank you for your defense,,,,yes Ringo and I are close, and do tend to try to out insult each other,,most of which would probably get us banned from here, and someone coming to our homes with a bar of soap!,,btw,,,,whats your view of the subject?

Take care all
michelle

I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
26 posted 2004-01-20 07:14 AM


On countless occasions, I bounced different biblical version interpretations against each other and against Strong's concordance of the bible... what did I find?

~ I found added passages and words coupled with misinterpretation of certain words and biased punctuation placements.

After studying some Egyptian religion history, it became quite apparent to me that Judaism was an off-shoot of that particular religion, just as christianity is an off-shoot of Judaism. No doubt in my mind that the ancient Egyptian religion was an off-shoot of a previous religion of a previous religion of a previous religion, and so forth.

For certain, there have been many "Jesus'" throughout mankind's history.

Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189
Pennsylvania
27 posted 2004-01-20 07:20 AM


Opeth,,,thats what I was trying to say with my comment of slaughtering the inturpritation,,,,as many versions as you can find,,,you will find discrepensies,,,thats how it goes,,,like the telegraph game played in school,,,,,thank you
Michelle

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
28 posted 2004-01-20 10:24 AM


Opeth:

quote:
On countless occasions, I bounced different biblical version interpretations against each other and against Strong's concordance of the bible... what did I find?
~ I found added passages and words coupled with misinterpretation of certain words and biased punctuation placements.



Actually ambiguous areas where things had to be "interpreted" in the translation process were pretty rare.  Where there were questions, usually other passages of scripture provided the proper context.  And out of all the existing "fuzzy spots", none of the cardinal doctrines of Christianity are affected thereby.  In other words, the "confusion" is much less than some people state it is ... in fact it only presents the same problems that any translation process would.


Michelle:

quote:
Opeth,,,thats what I was trying to say with my comment of slaughtering the inturpritation,,,,as many versions as you can find,,,you will find discrepensies,,,thats how it goes,,,like the telegraph game played in school,,,,,thank you


Yes!  Exactly.  And just like the telegraph game we played in school, we still have access to the early documents to see where the few discrepancies occurred.  And so the later translations are mostly based upon the earliest manuscripts (The Alexandrian Type) ... which makes any argument as to corruption of text, an invalid argument.  

If you read extensively in the popular translations of the Bible (KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, etc...), you will find that they are SO similar ... just like two different translations of Augustine's "Confessions" would be.  The differences are mostly stylistic, and have to do with choosing between a literal word for word approach, or a dynmaic equivalent approach (focusing on meaning rather than matching exact words).  Actually most of the modern translations represent a good balance between the two approaches.  


quote:
but, he had given his views already,,,I'm still learning that people revisit and reply several times


Michelle, I was not repeating my original response.  I was only responding to the new things you said, about translations and textual corruption.  I've studied this to some degree, and have found that most assumptions out there about it are just grossly mistaken.  No hard feelings.  I love the Bible.  And so I tend to go correcting, when I hear wrong ideas about it.  I don't only love the Bible, but people too.  And since I think it matters what people think about it, and its trustworthiness ... I do it to help others.  I don't pretend to know everything about it.   But it is a highly important and interesting subject to me ... and directly related to who Jesus is.


Stephen.      

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
29 posted 2004-01-20 10:33 AM


"Yes!  Exactly.  And just like the telegraph game we played in school, we still have access to the early documents to see where the few discrepancies occurred.  And so the later translations are mostly based upon the earliest manuscripts (The Alexandrian Type) ... which makes any argument as to corruption of text, an invalid argument."

~ I absolutely disagree with that above statement. The telegraph game Michelle is speaking about, which I believe is most likely to be the same as the navy's "Haley's Comment" lesson in communication game, in the case of biblical translations would have taken place prior to the writing of the documents, but to the actual reporting of events. In other words, the telegraph game as it relates to biblical translation occured prior to the writings. Upon the writings, the stories told most likely changed dramatically - as it does when we in the navy perform the Haley's Comet routine, but then doe not change at all after the order is written.
  

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
30 posted 2004-01-20 10:39 AM


quote:
In other words, the telegraph game as it relates to biblical translation occured prior to the writings. Upon the writings, the stories told most likely changed dramatically



Ah, but that's an entirely different argument than "textual corruption".  The argument that the story itself was skewed in the transmission from life to writing (which was a very short time ... in a culture for whom meticulous oral traditions were a way of life).  

I'll give you the burden of proof.  What is your evidence that what was first written is not what happened?


Stephen.

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
31 posted 2004-01-20 10:50 AM


"Ah, but that's an entirely different argument than "textual corruption".  The argument that the story itself was skewed in the transmission from life to writing (which was a very short time ... in a culture for whom meticulous oral traditions were a way of life)."

~ Ah, but on top of stories being told and finally written after many years of being told, there was also textual corruption through misinterpretations and biases.

And the burden of proof is not on my side. Although I can easily use common sense to justify my stance - zealots of a man named Jesus tell tall tales about his works, which continue to change and evolve into what we know to be legendary or mythical. It happens quite frequently with events that occur. Look at the story of the private who was rescued in an Iraqi hospital - my how the story grew into a tale of deep bravery and courage - and that happened within days after the event - for sure, decades and scores after Christ, could not the same occur about his doings/works?

Quite logically, the answer in my mind is an emphatic - YES.  

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
32 posted 2004-01-20 12:05 PM


quote:
...decades and scores after Christ



Opeth,

I am glad that your shift to this argument shows that the textual corruption one isn't so easy to defend.  But alas, neither is this one.


You fail to understand the nature of historical report.  For rarely (if ever?) have historical accounts been written with the blinding immediacy that you are requiring.  Using your standard, we should be skeptical about most of the history of Western Civilization.  


It's pretty well established that the Synoptic Gospels were written from 1) Oral traditions 2) Written Fragments 3) Mutual dependence upon other Synoptic writers, and testimonies of eye-witnesses.  

Mark- written in the 50s or early 60s (possibly late as 70)

Matthew- written from the early 50s to 70s (early or late, depending upon which view is held about Mark having been used as a common source)

Luke- written from the 50s to the 70s (early or late, also depending upon the Mark hypothesis)


Seeing that the end of Jesus' Earthly ministry was around the mid to late 30s, some of these accounts were written as early as 10-15 years later, with good reason to believe that the writings came from other earlier writings, testimonies, etc... In other words, the synoptic Gospels were compilations, not first time writings out of thin air.  


Consider the wording of the beginning of Luke:

quote:
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.  Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

(Luke 1:1-4)



So your theory of a break in continuity, or perversion, is just your assumption.  And your use of phrases like "decades and scores after Christ" only obscures the facts.  This is no different than how historical happenings in general were passed along during that time.  Comparing that with the Iraqi story does nothing ... The Western paradigm of sensationalistic media, cannot be superimposed upon 1st Century Palestine.


Stephen.
    

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
33 posted 2004-01-20 12:48 PM


"So your theory of a break in continuity, or perversion, is just your assumption."

As is your assumption that what was written is exactly as it happened. The onus is on neither of us - that is why you must rely on faith believe in what you believe. Unlike me, I rely on common sense and the sheer (imo) unsoundness that a ONE god only religion over all others is THE only way, and that that ONE god's religion can't even come together as ONE church (and I am just scratching the surface on this separate issue).

"And your use of phrases like "decades and scores after Christ" only obscures the facts.  This is no different than how historical happenings in general were passed along during that time."

~ I think not. I have read accounts of historical data from the actual source who was actually there and whose voice was actually recorded - but not only that, this person, as many others when deciphering historcial matters were not zealots to a cause. Religous zealots are the worst when it comes to trumping up their religious beliefs. Politicians are a close second. It is no surprise to me that those who lived with Jesus were fanatics and his stories grew into tall-tales. Just look at Jim Jones and he was (as Senator Kennedy would put it) "no Jesus" - but he had people believing that he WAS GOD incarnate. Look at all the faith healers and the people who will swear to their own God that these faith healers are performing acts like jesus performed - and you won't allow the possibility that Jesus' people could not of done the same?

"Comparing that with the Iraqi story does nothing ... The Western paradigm of sensationalistic media, cannot be superimposed upon 1st Century Palestine."

~ It can't? Says who? You. Based on what grounds? I say it can and probably was much less sensational than what happened to a much younger and much more dupable human society as was in the 1st Century Palestine.


Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
34 posted 2004-01-20 04:21 PM


Please understand that my opinion is just that, opinion. I don't claim it as fact,
nor is there an aim to offend those of the christian faith. The books are so incredibly
open to interpretation and the history of the early church so convoluted that I fear
we'll never have enough evidenceto know for sure. My comments are based upon
my own readings of the bible as well as some interesting books on the topic.

Jesus in my opinion, was a wise and charismatic leader. His words were not
meant to be taken as a reformation of the Jewish faith but a restoration of
it. He was a fundamentalist. The Temple in the time of Jesus is a temple under
Roman rule. It was lax, in the eyes of Jesus and his followers, in observing the
Law. Jesus sought to restore the strict adherence to the law in much the same
way the Maccabaens had done under Hellenized Jerusalem.

Mattiathias Maccabaeus,  a priest, was ordered by a Greek officer to make a
sacrifice on a pagan altar, against Judaic law. In a  "zeal for the law' he killed the
soldier and a Jew who had complied, and retreated to the countryside where he
drew people to his cause. This lead to a full scale revolt and in time the Maccabaen
dynasty who restored the temple and priesthood to a strict adherence to the Law.

That's not to say Jesus was inciting a full scale revolt against the Romans, although
it would make clearer comments like ""Do not think that I have come to bring peace
on earth. I have not come to bring peace but a sword." Whatever his eventual intent,
peaceful or revolutionary, Jesus was an adherent of the Law and used his knowledge
of the Bible to give weight to his words and movement.

To further the idea that Jesus was not there to change but to preserve the law is the
passage:

(Matt 5:17-19)

"Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets..but to complete
them..not one dot, not one little stroke shall disappear from the Law until its purpose
is achieved. Therefore the man who infringes even one of the least of these commandments
and teaches others to do the same will be considered the least in the Kingdom of Heaven"

Yet Christianity and Roman Catholicism did/do  infringe upon some of these laws.  
To get a glimpse of how and where the change between the original cult of Jesus and what
becomes christianity one must read Acts of the NT. It's here we're introduced to the
enigmatic and in my opinon, shady, character Saul Of Tarsus, better known as Paul. As
Nietzche once said it is under Paul that Jesus and his teachings are essentially  'pulled
from underneath the Jews'.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
35 posted 2004-01-20 09:40 PM


quote:
Look at all the faith healers and the people who will swear to their own God that these faith healers are performing acts like jesus performed - and you won't allow the possibility that Jesus' people could not of done the same?

and ...
quote:
it ... probably was much less sensational than what happened to a much younger and much more dupable human society as was in the 1st Century Palestine.



Well, I'm glad to see that you've retreated from 1) The documents have been corrupted, to 2) There was too much time between the events and the first documentation, to 3) His disciples were duped, or they lied.  


Actually I knew it would take this progression since positions 1 & 2 are untenable, and you weren't able to offer anything to defend them.  


Now that you have landed at the hallucination theories, or the fabrication theories, you'll have to do what scholars have been unable to do thus far ... offer cogent reasons why Christianity wasn't squelched early on, by the Romans or Jews presenting the body of Jesus ... proving that the resurrection narrative was a farce.  Remember that Christianity was considered a divisive sect by the Jews ... and a threat by the Romans.  (They often made public examples of Zealot groups and "Messiahs" in order to ensure that there would be no uprisings against Roman Rule.)


Before you say something like, "Jesus may have never existed", or "he may have never been crucified", know that these facts are pretty much accepted as indisputable by NT scholars ... believers or not.  Gary Habermas has presented 12 indisputable facts for which he argues that the resurrection of Jesus is the only rational explanation.  He then trimmed it down to 4 or 5 "Core" facts.  These core facts are:

1. Jesus died by Roman crucifixion

2. The disciples "claimed" to have seen the risen Christ.

3. The birth of the Christian Church, which for the Jews entailed:

a. Abandoning the sacrificial system
b. Abandoning an emphasis on keeping the law of Moses
c. Abandoning the Sabbath Day (4th Commandment), for Sunday worship
d. Abandoning the Jewish conception of the Messiah (Christ) as political king or conqueror who would liberate the Jews from the tyranny of Rome.

4. The conversion of Paul.

5. The conversion of James.


In light of these facts ... hallucination theories, and fabrication theories fall short.  To believe them would actually exceed any "faith" that is demanded by accepting the NT as is.  
And I have said all of this, not to present some meta-argument that the whole of Christianity must be believed because it is historically tenable, but to show that the allegation of a dubious history is false.  It just removes one more stumbling block out of the way, for those who might too easily believe you when you say the historical foundations of Christianity are doubtful.  



Stephen.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

36 posted 2004-01-20 10:06 PM


Raph,

An alternative to Nietzche for your consideration:

Correct, Jesus was not sent to abolish the law, but to fulfill it on behalf of those who couldn't. It is done away with (practically)when "its purpose is achieved", i.e., leading people to the rest (from self-labor)found in Christ, which was/is its intent. We don't have to go on fulfilling what Christ has already fulfilled on our behalf.

You'll also find in the Scriptures that the Law was given to Israel alone anyway, not to the nations. The Gentile nations were not/are not under Israel's law anymore than I am under Canadian statutes, or you are under U.S. statutes. In the book of Romans you will find that God states that the Gentile nations are guided only by the constraints of conscience, being foreigners and aliens regarding God's dealings with and promises to Israel. Even though Gentiles are not legally under the law given to Israel, it goes without saying that they also couldn't keep it even if they were. Nobody is capable of keeping it, Jew or Gentile.

Jesus in his earthly ministry, along with the Twelve, were sent to minister only to the House of Israel, and most of their teachings concerned the qualifiations for entering the future coming earthly Kingdom of Christ on earth (the literal Thousand Year Reign in Jerusalem, not merely salvation), although you do see reference to the farther-reaching benefits of Christ's atonement for all mankind sprinkled throughout. This particular ministry of Jesus and the Twelve exclusively to the Jews is referred to as the Gospel of the Circumcision.

Paul was commissioned by the Ascended Lord Jesus to proclaim the Gospel of the Uncircumcision, to all the Gentile nations on the basis of faith alone in the Person and work of Christ. When you realize that two different ministries to two different groups of people are being discussed, the so-called contradictions that perplex so many simply disappear.



  
  

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
37 posted 2004-01-20 10:14 PM


Stephenos,
I think you should have been the one to put  things into books to begin with.  Things would have stayed in proper order and clarity.  The kind of clarity that you emphasize anything of Christianity has given me given me a much greater opinion than I ever had of Christianity and its beliefs.  It doesn't change the fact that I am confused about my own beliefs and spirituality; but it is more than a pleasure to come across some one who may keep things in order and clarity as you have always done in this forum.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
38 posted 2004-01-20 11:21 PM


You'll also find in the Scriptures that the Law was given to Israel alone anyway, not to the nations

Exactly, Denise this is my point. The teachings of Jesus were not intended for gentiles. It's only under Paul
that they come down to us as he did not adhere to the law and was repeatedly warned against this by James
and the disciples.

Paul was commissioned by the Ascended Lord Jesus to proclaim the Gospel of the Uncircumcision, to all
the Gentile nations on the basis of faith alone in the Person and work of Christ. When you realize that two different ministries to two different groups of people are being discussed, the so-called contradictions that perplex so
many simply disappear.


Simply disappear? Perhaps for some Denise but I don't find it that simple at all. Suddenly there is a schism
between the early sects which begins under Paul. Essentially the real Jesus, known to the James and the
disciples and on the other hand that of Paul's based on a desert vision (the ascended Christ).  A vision that
occurs as he is hunting for those very disciples to arrest and bring back bound to the Jerusalem.

When his history is viewed, Paul's character can be considered questionable. He is twice admonished by
James for not adhering to the law. He admits this freely and even accepts the punishment of purification
for four days. He then, however, continues to undermine the sect with his own brand of teaching. Not only
separating himself  from them in 2 Corinthians 11:

"But I am afraid, lest..your minds be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.
For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached..For I consider myself
not in the least inferior to the most eminent of apostles"

he then denounces them

"What I am doing I will continue to do, that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire
an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the manner about which they are boasting.
For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers disguising themselves as apostles of Christ"

It falls in the end, to a matter of faith. Who do you believe?  You have on the one hand James (whom many
believe to be the brother of Jesus) and the disciples who knew Jesus, and on the other Paul. The flesh and blood
and friends of Jesus and Paul formerly Saul of Tarsus member of what could be considered the Temple's Brute
Squad. A man who never knew Jesus, but for a vision.  A man so deeply rooted against Jesus and his followers,
that he stood by with approval as Stephen the first martyr was stoned. That his vision and conversion just happen
to come while he is searching for the very people he has asked the High priest's permission to round up is considered suspicious to some.


The more I look at Paul the less I believe.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

39 posted 2004-01-21 12:14 PM


Most of the teachings of Jesus were meant only for the Jews. There were some truths that He taught that were applicable for all mankind.


quote:
That his vision and conversion just happen
to come while he is searching for the very people he has asked the High priest's permission to round up is considered suspicious to some.


And nothing short of miraculous to others.    

I'll have to digest the rest of your points tomorrow night. It's waaaay past my bedtime, Raph. Goodnight!

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
40 posted 2004-01-21 02:23 AM


I can't argue with that Denise, all movements be they spiritual or political, contain messages and truths applicable to many. Especially in the hands and speech of an intelligent and charismatic leader.

As for the miraculous, well one should approach miracles with caution. It is an incredibly easy and bad habit of the church to fall back on this when questions arise that are not easily answered or call to question the faith.

Years ago, I believe it was in New York, there was a vision of Mary found in a greasy window. Many people visited the site out of curiosity and many to pray, calling it a miracle. Now many christians/catholics, who do believe in miracles, had the sense to say it was just a coincedence or that it was outright ridiculous.

In the same way many can do the same with regards to Paul. There are too many questions raised about him and while the faithful can easily dismiss them I cannot. Whatever his personal intention I'm too wary of Paul to believe in his miraclulous vision and Jesus' sudden turn in 'policy' left in his hands and not the disciples.

It's my opinion that what Paul did not change or distort the early church and it's catering to a pagan audience did. And in doing so the truth behind Jesus, his teachings and his history have been lost or buried.

hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
41 posted 2004-01-21 03:11 AM


Michelle, Stephen's a nice guy, and he's also pretty smart. I've observed both he and Denise to not only know their Bible, but to know a lot about their faith as a whole. They are people you can learn things from... it doesn't help to become defensive.

I know I've picked things up from Stephen, and I'm still a happily undecided agnostic. (BTW Stephen... hi!)

Now, I always thought part of the strength of the Bible was that there were four accounts of Christ's life included. Kind of there for comparison, I guess?

One thing I'm wondering... which gospel was it that talked about his youth? (I think it was Gospel of St. Thomas). I remember my religion professor reading us a passage from it, and if memory serve, the young Jesus used his miraculous powers to turn some other kids into animals (sparrows?) and poor old Joseph had to deal with how to discipline him... a kind of eerie resemblance to the Twilight Zone episode with the kid who sends people and htings he doesn't like out into the crnfields by wishing it, seems to me.

Anyway, he explained that it wasn't included Biblically b/c it was too far off from what more solidly documented records showed Christ's character to be... and also that the Gnostics were kind of an extremist ofshoot anyway. But I wonder, aren't texts like that valuable, if only for comparison purposes?

Anyway, Jesus... man or messiah? I dunno. Probably sounds pretty apathetic, but it's not something I'm significantly armed to decide right now. Maybe someday I will be.

Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189
Pennsylvania
42 posted 2004-01-21 05:33 AM


such wonderful things you are all stating,,,,,and as you can see, we all stand firm behind our beliefs,,,no matter what they are, where they come from, or what they may be based on,,,form blind faith,,,to scholar based,,,,,,this is what I wanted to see, thank you all,,,stephan,,opeth,,denise,,,,,,,,,,
and Hush,,
I wasnt being defensive,,,,I just wanted discussion on the topic,,,,believe me,,if you ever saw me on defense mode,,you'd see the difference! ha ha
and, hats of to the obvious intellegence behind all you all have had to say....
dig it,,,I do believe this is post #5oo for me,,,,,,time flies!
Michelle

I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
43 posted 2004-01-21 07:37 AM


"Well, I'm glad to see that you've retreated from 1) The documents have been corrupted, to 2) There was too much time between the events and the first documentation, to 3) His disciples were duped, or they lied."

~ No. I never did. The documents have been corrupted. There was indeed enough time between the actual occurance of events and the writing of these events, allowing the zealots of christ to tell tall-tales. His disciples were duped, indeed, into believing that this man, if he ever existed, was in fact a godman of some sort of extension of the ancient Egyptian belief of a triune god.

There are various issues here, some interconnecting, some moreso off on a tangent, and I really don't have the time to discuss them all. In fact in your latter part of this reply, you have completely diverted back to issues that we have argued in the past. Briefly the Sabbath - it was before the laws of Moses, the apostles were still obeying the command after Christ's death and it was never done away with or changed to sunday - but that is just one issue off the subject matter at hand.  

I have read much about this subject. There is no proof that your god is the only god (if there is even a god to begin with).  Common sense and logic dictates that if there was a supreme being who "wills all to be saved" would allow herself to be known by her created people through many different means - not just one. Especially, when your bible lays down the rule that only those who have received the holy spirit through a conversion into accepting the godman as their personal saviour, can be saved - and biillions upon billions of people never even had a chance to know this godman - and then they for certain must be eternally damned to a hellfire because they didn't get a chance.

I find that to be totally and undeniably ridiculous.

Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189
Pennsylvania
44 posted 2004-01-21 11:31 AM


opeth,
awsum reply, one point, about all the ones who never knew the "savior",,,supposedly, the "gates of hell were opened" when "jesus" dies,,,popular theory is that means the souls were released into "heaven" then....
A teaching of Jehovah Witnesses,,,,,states that , all the ones who died before, get awakened into the "1000 year reign of peace" on earth to get their rewards, when "jesus" comes back,,,,,
so, there are a few theories out there about the ones who never got the chance to get on the boat
Michelle

I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
45 posted 2004-01-21 11:48 AM


"...one point, about all the ones who never knew the "savior",,,supposedly, the "gates of hell were opened" when "jesus" dies,,,popular theory is that means the souls were released into "heaven..."

~ Which only goes to show how contradicting and open for numerous interpretations the bible is.  I call that the "cop-out" answer because:

1. The bible states that there is only ONE way to be saved and that is to repent and accept Jesus and ONLY then can one receive the holy spirit - w/o the holy spirit one cannot be saved. The bible makes no exceptions.  And if my memory serves me correctly, the HS was not available until the Pentacost, which did not occur at the time of Jesus' death - or did he even die?

2. What were these people doing in hell in the first place? They weren't judged yet. You mean a god is going to cast people into a hell and then bring them out later only to judge them and throw them back in hell again (laughable!). And which hell are we talking about anyway - The Lake of Fire? That lake was dry at the time of Christ's death and doesn't come into existence until the book of revelations.

3. Did Christ actually die then? If he remained alive after his death, he never did actually die (thanatos). Why need a ressurection of a body if one merely "separates" from one's body upon death to float into heaven or sink into hell?

4. It is rather silly, isn't it, to suggest that the "gates of hell" opened when christ died and all of those who have never heard his name got a "free ticket" to heaven. Wait! They were never actually tempted then, were they? Even Christ was tempted. Not only that, if I were cast into a hell and all of a sudden here comes a god being telling me to believe on him in order to get my get out of jail for free card, I am going to think, "hmmmm, eternity in this hell or believe in this dude and get the hell (pun intended) outta here? I believe in you, brother!" I don't think one person would be left behind - they would ALL believe.

5. But the bible says that on man has entered heaven except the son of man. If these people went to heaven before christ did the bible then contradicts itself.

"A teaching of Jehovah Witnesses,,,,,states that , all the ones who died before, get awakened into the "1000 year reign of peace" on earth to get their rewards, when "jesus" comes back,,,,,
so, there are a few theories out there about the ones who never got the chance to get on the boat"


~ That actually makes much more sense and was similiar to what I believed when I was a christian. Then, every person gets their one and only chance to be saved. Of course, some will still refuse, but others will accept. However, I was not a Jehovah's Witness.


Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189
Pennsylvania
46 posted 2004-01-21 12:01 PM


the "holy spirit" was talked of before the pentacost,,(i.e. the tounges of fire on their heads),,,it was mentioned as a dove, when john baptised jesus,,,,
as for the aforementioned gates, opening, free tickets,,,,it never made sense to me either
..lake of fire,,,,the studies i ran amuck in,,,,poitnt that the belief of a fiery hell was born in a garbage dump,,,,,,
Gehanna was a garbage dump outside the city,,,where they kept the fires burning all the time,,,,,hence,,bad and dead things were tossed into an ever burning fire,,,,as far as god, and tossing souls into eternal fires,,,,in the old testament,,,,it speaks of Molech,,,,pagan god extraordinaire,,,,,anyway,,,people would toss their own kids into the fire that burned in the belly of Molech,,,,god says,,that sort of thing sickens him,,,and would never come into his heart
just a few morsels
Michelle


I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
47 posted 2004-01-21 02:49 PM


The holy spirit was talked about, but was not given to the newly converted until the day of pentacost.

As for gehenna, yep I know about that. Hell has been translated from at least 4 words.

Did you know that the bible refers to souls (nephesh) as being dead and that dead animals are actually called dead souls?

In fact, today's mainstream christianity is proof positive of the ever-changing human creation of religious doctrines and beliefs. It wasn't until christianity teachings began to fuse with the teachings of Plato and Socrates did the idea of the immortal soul take hold in christian thought. Even Augustine quotes Plato in his ascertion that the soul is immortal. Of course, later, stemming from that belief, a writer named Dante Aligieri wrote The Divine Comedy and as the years past, the whole hellfire and brimstone and suffering and purgatory, etc fused with the immortal soul doctrine, creating a fearful plight for all of those who refuse to accept, or simply don't understand the concept of a saviour who picked a bad point in time to make himself known as lord of lords. He should of came today. We could of at least recorded his words and video taped his speeches.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
48 posted 2004-01-21 03:28 PM


If you don't find the bible a good cushion, that is because people keep putting pins in it.
Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189
Pennsylvania
49 posted 2004-01-21 09:42 PM


Opeth,,,seens you and I share a lot of the same ideas,,,,,esso,,,,true
Michelle

I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
50 posted 2004-01-21 09:42 PM


If anyone is interested in the Old Testament concept of resurrection and afterlife which Jesus derives his teachings from; here are a few passages. The first occurs in Ezekiel's vision, in which God speaks of spirit and total regeneration:

'Behold, I will cause breath(or Spirit) to enter you that you may come to life.And I will put sinews on you, make flesh grow back on you, cover you with skin and put breath in you that you may come alive: and you will know that I am the LORD'
(Ezekiel 37:5-6)

Interestingly the concept of heaven is one on earth, the promised land of Israel

'Behold I will open your graves and cause you to come up from your graves, My people;and I will bring you back to Israel..'
(Ezekiel 37:12)

and then explains who shall rule and how life will be

'I will take the sons of Israel from among the nations where they have gone..and bring them into their own land and I will make them one nation...And My servant David will be the King over them and they will all have one sheppard: and they will walk in my ordinances and keep my statutes...'

These images are interesting with regards to Jesus. He is the descendant of David we are told, he is refered to as the sheppard and his teachings promote these statutes or Laws of God.

The theme occurs again in the book of David

"And many of those who lie sleeping in the dust of the earth will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to shame and everlasting disgrace"
(David 12:2)

and again a striking image a few passages later as Daniel continues:

'..I heard a man dressed in linen, who was above the waters of the river..'

Another interesting image used in describing Jesus or used by Jesus to further his words.

Another reference to the afterlife occurs in the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament Apocrypha, in 2 Maccabees. Throughout 2 Maccabees 7 we hear the words and actions of tortured captives. Their faith and fervour call to mind the modern day suicide bomber and the glory of dying for their cause. This is not far flung considering the Maccabean revolt constantly used suicide attacks and this mode of warfare continued throughout and after Jesus' time with the Sicarii of Israel.

'..you may discharge us from this present life, but the king of the world will raise us up, since it is for his laws that we die'

If one does view Jesus as the revolutionary, and some will, one could assume his teachings and comments on the afterlife were meant to not only or not at all as the redemption of mankind, but  inspiring words to strengthen the resolve of his followers. It isn't difficult to imagine this if one can take into accept an historical and revolutionary Jesus rather than the diefied version. And while some may dismiss this it is interesting to note that among Jesus' followers was Simon the Zealot and that there are many comments reffering to 'those zealous for the law'

Just offering an alternative view to Jesus and the promise of the afterlife.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
51 posted 2004-01-22 01:21 AM


Aenimal:
quote:
His words were not
meant to be taken as a reformation of the Jewish faith but a restoration of
it. He was a fundamentalist.



But what about the Jewish expectation of the Messiah?  If Judaism was not a static religion, but an expectant one, then it stands to reason that change was also expected.  Moses was the recipient, and the main “teacher” of the law.  Then, as Israel slipped away from that standard through the years, there came prophets like Josiah, David, and Ezra who pointed men back to the Law (or Torah).  They literally dusted it off, and brought it back in focus when it had been neglected.  They most definitely did not place much emphasis on themselves, but upon the Law given through Moses.  Here is an example:


"So on the first day of the seventh month, Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly, which was made up of men and women and all who were able to understand.  He read it aloud from daybreak till noon as he faced the square before the Water Gate in the presence of the men, women and others who could understand.  And all the people listened attentively to the Book of the Law


... Day after Day from the first day to the last, Ezra read from the Book of the Law of God.  


... The rest of the people... bound themselves with a curse and an oath to follow the Law of God given through Moses the servant of God, and to obey carefully all the commands, regulations, and decrees of the LORD our Lord.


(Nehemiah 8:2,3,18 & 10:28-29)


There were other leaders who likewise called the people back to the Law, as given through Moses.  But the question is, does Jesus fit this category?  Did he honor and uphold the Law, and call people back to the standard of the Law?  Yes, of course.  But when we look at the New Testament Narratives of Jesus, we see something more... something much different than someone trying to restore Judaism to a former status quo.


It must be remembered that:

1) Judaism had a Messianic hope, and many written prophecies concerning it.  (including a prophecy in Daniel about “putting an end to sacrifice”)

2) Most Jews held the “political” view of Messiah ... as one who would come and lead Israel in Military conquest, provide freedom from Rome, and provide a renewed national glory.

3) Jesus claimed, though cautiously, to be the fulfillment of that Messianic hope.  He was cautious because of the political overtones of the word “Messiah”, and he did not want to pretend to fulfill that erroneous yet popular conception.

4) Jesus refused on several occasions the tendency of the populace to elevate him as a “King”, or political ruler.  

5) Jesus often spoke of a Heavenly Kingdom in contrast with the current conception of an impending Theocratic state.

6) Jesus spoke of his approaching death, and resurrection from the dead.

7) Jesus often spoke of his wider mission toward humanity, as if he did not come merely for the Jews, but for all.

8) Jesus spoke of himself in terms which unmistakably hinted at his unique relationship to God, even his divine nature.  So much was this evident that the Jews charged him with “making himself to be equal with God”.

9) Jesus emphasized himself as the “way” to God, moreso than any return to ethics or ceremonial observance.  Yet no other prophets who merely came to call Israel back to the Law, emphasized themselves.  


I won’t quote the scriptures unless I need to, but if one reads the NT as is, it is obvious that Jesus could not have been a mere prophet who called his people back to the sacrificial system of Moses.  To avoid this problem, you could say that Paul and his entourage influenced the gospels, so that their content would not reflect the real teachings of Jesus, or that they altered the original texts.


But this theory has some major problems.  First, there are no records of an alternate narrative which might reflect the “true” account of Jesus.  What we have in the gospels is “it”.  Secondly, there isn’t much within them to suggest that the gospels are particularly “Pauline”.  His main ideas such as, the fully developed doctrines of the atonement, redemption by faith, the universality of salvation, and the relationship of law and grace, are not reflected in the gospels ... which were compiled after Paul’s epistles were written.  If Paul really influenced the writing of the Gospels, to steer them away from their pure beginnings, it seems he would have been much more true to his own more developed doctrines.  

The most natural conclusion would be that what the gospels set forth as doctrines in seed, were developed later through Paul as a natural outgrowth of the words, actions, and life of Jesus.  The gospels are in germ.  Paul’s epistles are the full blossom.  But if Paul changed the story, then it would naturally have appeared the other way around.  The Gospels would have been more fully reflective of Pauline thought, his main ideas having been already written down and circulated through the churches.  


Just some initial thoughts,

more later ...

Stephen.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
52 posted 2004-01-22 01:55 AM


Hush:

quote:
... it wasn't included Biblically b/c it was too far off from what more solidly documented records showed Christ's character to be... and also that the Gnostics were kind of an extremist ofshoot anyway. But I wonder, aren't texts like that valuable, if only for comparison purposes?



I guess they are useful, for the purpose of studying what certain groups wrote, or believed about Jesus (such as the Gnostics).  Actually the Gnostic stuff is highly influenced by Eastern religous ideas ... Jesus is more of a guru type, to show people how to achieve the "way" within themselves, basically to show them that divinity is within.  This is contrary to the true teachings of Jesus.  But that's a side note.

Your professor was right.  It was rejected because it didn't prove to be of apostolic character ... which means the authorship was dubious, and the content was untrue to the writings which had been confirmed as genuine.

Here is a quote of an Early Church authority on the matter...


quote:
Now all these would be among the disputed writings; but nevertheless we have been compelled to make a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those writings which the tradition of the Church has deemed true and genuine and acknowledged from the others outside their number, which, though they are not canonical but even disputed, yet are recognized by most churchmen. [And this we have done] in order that we might be able to know both these same writings and also those which the heretics put forward in the name of the apostles, whether as containing Gospels of Peter and Thomas and Matthias, or even of some others besides these, or as containing Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles. None of these has been deemed worthy of any kind of mention in a treatise by a single member of successive generations of churchmen; and the character of the style also is far removed from the apostolic manner, and the thought and purport of their contents is so absolutely out of harmony with true orthodoxy, as to establish the fact that they are certainly the forgeries of heretics. For this reason they ought not even to be placed among the spurious writings, but refused as altogether monstrous and impious. - (Eusebius)



Stephen


    

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
53 posted 2004-01-22 07:00 AM


Aenimal,

I understood your point exactly! It is funny to me how mainstream christianity, in order to keep its power and in order to keep the flock (and money) coming in always has found, what I call "outs" for answers which simple logical explanations should suffice.

You quote Ezekial and the Valley of the Dry Bones - I have heard that passage interpreted in a most amusing and distorted manner in order to keep people (converted) believing in a fear lest they suffer forever eternity. Another interesting and completely illogical interpretation in the bible is the passages of Azazel the Goat - which definitely shows how there will be a false christ whom the masses can not tell from "the real deal."  

But back to Ezekial, if there was any clear-cut passage from the bible about what a ressurection consists of and the nature of man - there it is, in Ezekial.

Stephanos,

A heavenly kingdom doesn't mean the kingdom is not going to come to the earth - the new earth! I mean, don't christians pray for "thy kingdom come?" Which kingdom? The heavenly kingdom. Coming to where? To earth -just as prophesized in the OT. Christ said as he left he will come again. That scripture matches up with the OT scripture of the messiah coming in all of glories to stand and split Mount... forgot the name.

But what I really don't get is how you and your fellow christians are so certain that you "got it right" and even the Jewish people and all of the Rabbis and scholars "got it wrong." Who is the judge here?

  

Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189
Pennsylvania
54 posted 2004-01-22 08:04 AM


Opeth,,,
It seems that religions have been battling for eons over whos right,,,,,,they all say they are,,,,,so, that battle will never be won, none the less, they'll keep slugging it out.

Stephen,,,,,why not quote the scriptures you are refering from, so we can all share,,,I myself cannot, nor dare try, to remember book and verse for all matters,,,but, I can find the right one when needed,,,,part of what you've said is that the scriptures are accurate and unskewed,,so use them,,,cool beans
Michelle

I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike

Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189
Pennsylvania
55 posted 2004-01-22 08:08 AM


please, read this one,,,,it sums up the "which religion is right" debate in a nutshell,,,,,,,kudos to the auther!
Michelle /pip/Forum83/HTML/003153.html

I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
56 posted 2004-01-22 08:16 AM


Which other religion besides christianity thinks its got the "market cornered" on knowing the true god and salvation?


Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
57 posted 2004-01-22 08:31 AM


As always Stephanos you bring up some excellent points, however, my problem with some of them
is that they're based on the assumption that the narratives have survived unaltered. This simply isn't
the case. Assuming, for a moment, that they did manage to avoid the 'telephone game' effect Opeth
mentioned earlier, there is still the Roman audience to consider.

One cannot underestimate just how much the original teachings and accounts of Jesus would have
been changed to suit this audience. To say that Jesus avoided the Messianic claim, the role of King
or that:

Jesus claimed, though cautiously, to be the fulfillment of that Messianic hope.  He was cautious because
of the political overtones of the word “Messiah”, and he did not want to pretend to fulfill that erroneous yet
popular conception.


is far too simple. You have to assume that any political overtones, would have been excised from the texts.
Changes would have to have been made and there are, of course, some obvious evidence of this already. For
example there is no mention or criticism of Roman occupation from Jesus or the writers despite the historical
turmoil. There is lifting of blame from the Romans unto the Jews, especially in the a biblical account of the
compassionate and understanding Pontius Pilate, whose hands were tied, versus the historical records of the
man. Through poetic license these changes had to ensure the survival of christianity and to avoid alien-
ating a Roman audience.

Also, thanks to the discovery of a letter from the Bishop of Clement we know that there were changes
made to the gospel of Mark. Clement freely admits there is  far more to the gospel then what we have read
and that the Secret Gospel of Mark  is "..most carefully guarded, being read only to those being initiated
into the great mysteries..For not all true things are to be said to all men." We're not talking about a mere
editing or noncanonical book, but a secret version kept from the public by the church.

The fact remains, that there are no facts with regards to Jesus. Just alot of opinons, hearsay and conjecture
this far removed from history. The truth lies somewhere outside the gospels and organized religion and in time,
hopefully, it will be uncovered for the sake of either strengthening Christianity's claims or abolishing them
altogether. Texts like the dead sea scrolls, Nag Hammadi scrolls and the aforementioned letter by the Bishop
of Clement have raised most interesting questions and insight into the times. Hopefully more concrete evidence
and texts are found to support them.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
58 posted 2004-01-22 08:35 AM


Which other religion besides christianity thinks its got the "market cornered" on knowing the true god and salvation?

Grins, you realize how much flak you're going to take for that? I agree though. Throughout history there has never been a more intrusive religion when one considers the Inquisition,the crusades and also the stagnation of science(poor Galileo).

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
59 posted 2004-01-22 08:40 AM


oops forgot to mention thanks Opeth

I understood your point exactly! It is funny to me how mainstream christianity, in order to keep its power and in order to keep the flock (and money) coming in always has found, what I call "outs" for answers which simple logical explanations should suffice.

It's been that way from it's inception and throughout its history. I don't think many people realize but many of the saints of christianity are actually compromises. What would happen was when christian faith was introduced into pagan or celtic communites they found it hard to completly erase or excise the former beliefs. SO what the church would do is amalgamate the original diety or personality worshiped with christian virtues and voila, everybody was happy.

Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189
Pennsylvania
60 posted 2004-01-22 09:14 AM


Which religions think they have the corner on it?.........all of them
from the comet following cults,,,to the fellas knocking on your door with their literature....all think they are right,,,sadly, most think all else are doomed.
In the perfect world we would all enjoy,,,we could all agree to disagree, and find whatever we are looking for, be it salvation, peace, forgiveness, without someone tearing our beliefs apart
Michelle


I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
61 posted 2004-01-22 09:21 AM


Raph ~ You are welcome.
Michelle ~ Indeed.

"If this grand panorama before me is what you call God...then God is not dead."

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
62 posted 2004-01-22 02:39 PM


Guesses out of the blue have more accuracy than wolfbitten books.
jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
63 posted 2004-01-22 02:44 PM


Essorant:

Don't you think wild guesses and blind faith are more or less the same thing?  Why is the former more accurate than the latter?  To the tough-minded, both are immediately suspect.

Jim

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
64 posted 2004-01-22 03:24 PM


Yes; blind faith probably has more accuracy than wolfbitten books too!
jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
65 posted 2004-01-22 03:47 PM


What is a "wolfbitten book" ... cult literature?
Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
66 posted 2004-01-22 04:09 PM


It is any book, but usually an especially spiritual one, that has been abused by people; whose "meat" of words and phrases are hounded after and hurt to a point where the spirit of the book itself may no longer be read very well in the midst of that.  Once people relent hounding and ripping apart the "meat" of the book it may heal and be read spiritually again.  But while the hounding and attacking becomes more and more the spirit and truth of the book is less and less able to be read.
Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
67 posted 2004-01-22 04:30 PM


If there is a true god, I am sure he/she would make sure that his/her true words could be easily understood by the masses.

In the case of christianity, simple versus by the saviour could have prevented much confusion and allowed the true church to come together in agreement.

Statements by Jesus, such as these, which are no where to be found in the bible...

1. A direct defining of the fate of those who never hear his word.

2. Whether or not man possesses an immortal soul and what happens to man immediately upon death. Where in the bible does Jesus just come out and say, "When you die, this is what happens..."

... these are just 2 of many basic, but all important, questions of which any direct answers cannot be found, but are left open to interpretation.

Sounds like a very poor plan to save mankind when one "wills all to be saved."



Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
68 posted 2004-01-22 04:50 PM


If there is a true god, I am sure he/she would make sure that his/her true words could be easily understood by the masses.

Well you may be mistaken in thinking a God uses words in the first place.  
Humans use words to express things, a God perhaps does not.

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
69 posted 2004-01-22 05:01 PM


Essorant:

Well, I sort of agree with you.  But it is not that the books cannot be intelligently read as a result of some "hound[ing] after" fragments within texts to give credibility to their own poorly conceived prejudices.  The problem is persistent obfuscation of the texts in a public forum makes it near-impossible to to discuss the "spirit" or meaning of the texts intelligently.

Opeth:

quote:
If there is a true god, I am sure he/she would make sure that his/her true words could be easily understood by the masses.


So you're omniscient now?  Are you presuming to know how God would choose to address His creation if He chose to do so?  If there is a true God, then I would think it would be His prerogative to address His creation by any means He sees fit.  God is who God is, not what Opeth, or anyone, expects Him to be.

quote:
In the case of christianity, simple versus by the saviour could have prevented much confusion and allowed the true church to come together in agreement.


The rest of your post illustrates my reply to Essorant very well.  Your problem with Jesus, Opeth, is that Jesus didn't share your opinion of what questions are most important.  Furthermore, you seem to ignore some of Jesus' direct statements that do answer your questions (e.g., "No man shall come to the Father except through me"), but not in the way you want them to.

The problem with your points is that Jesus never claimed to have come to answer all of our questions regarding the glory and mystery of God and the nature of the spiritual world - He repeatedly stated that His purpose was to reconcile mankind to God.

Jim

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
70 posted 2004-01-22 07:09 PM


jbouder

You make a good point.
But If God may truly be found at one's own hearth and one may communicate with him, why shouldn't they go there to try and have the truth set straight about the bible?  
Sometimes I believe the frequency shown by religous people of having to spend so much time at the bible may indicate they are not actually finding the Spirit they believe in at the hearth aside of the bible or they or partially have, given up.  I mean-- at seeking God outside the pages and that the pages are where they only seem to find "God" as that is where "God" is written so that is on what they spiritually attatch them.  
But on the other hand, they may just need to get away from the bible and they may be very surprised at what is waiting for them at their own humble hearth.


[This message has been edited by Essorant (01-22-2004 07:56 PM).]

Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189
Pennsylvania
71 posted 2004-01-23 08:33 AM


"god" supposedly created us in "his own image",,,so, wouldn't it make sense that he would want to communicate thru words?
granted, I've been told that god speaks to your heart,,,,,this told to me by my fanatic pentacostol mother whom proceeded to run amuck "speaking in tounges",,,,
if so,,,mens hearts tend to go with the flow of what makes them happy,,,,so how would you know a divine hello form a , hey lets do chinese?
Michelle

I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
72 posted 2004-01-23 09:08 AM


Essorant:

I think most orthodox Christians would agree that it is possible to know some things about God's general nature without his direct and specific revelation of Himself in space and time.

Christians believe (or should believe) that God has revealed himself primarily through the written word. Why?  Perhaps because He recognized we too often become subjective in our decision making by relying on personal feelings that can be easily mislead.  A written revelation of God would have a more objective focus - so a savvy interpreter would be more concerned about what the Bible "says" than with what God is trying to say to "me."

Too often, I think people of all faiths tend to become too concerned with what God is "trying to tell them" or looking for personal signs from God.  I think the better focus is to try to understand His revelation and how one can apply it most effectively toward making wise decisions today.

In short, people usually become dissatisfied when they are not asking the right questions.

Michelle:

quote:
I've been told that god speaks to your heart,,,,,mens hearts tend to go with the flow of what makes them happy,,,,so how would you know a divine hello form a , hey lets do chinese?


For the reasons I noted in my reply to Essorant above, they can't.  And that really is a problem with much of Pentacostalism.  Unfortunately, the "heart" is not the most reliable of sources.  

Jim

[This message has been edited by jbouder (01-23-2004 10:38 AM).]

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
73 posted 2004-01-23 04:47 PM


Well you may be mistaken in thinking a God uses words in the first place.  
Humans use words to express things, a God perhaps does not.


The idea of God using words begins with the creation myth where God, by uttering words, ('Let there be..'),is able to physically manifest his image of the universe and everything within. He speaks directly with Adam and Cain and the his laws are personally dictated to Moses. It's not isolated to the Bible and christian/jewish faiths alone. The power and divinity of words is central to many religious/esoteric beliefs, like the Ibis god Djeuti,later evolving into Thoth-Hermes, of Egypt who was revered for the creation and gift of language to mankind as Prometheus was with fire. It is through words/thoughts, afterall, that humans are special(and horrible).

Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189
Pennsylvania
74 posted 2004-01-23 06:46 PM


jbouder,,,,,agreed
aenimal.....you put it very well
Michelle

I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
75 posted 2004-01-23 10:30 PM


But there's another possibility.

Scripture refers to God as "The Logos" ... or word.  It could be that what we know as oral language is only a dim reflection of God's kind of speech.  But just as a shadow retains a basic shape of the object which casts it, and yet is fundamentally different, so our language relates to God's.  In fact the whole Bible is that God literally communicated to us through words, through the man Jesus Christ.  Incarnate, God (kind of like a Philology professor), came to our preschool and spoke to us on our level, not with the goal to keep us there, but to eventually bring us to where his is.


The only problem Jim, with limiting God to communicating through the scriptures, is that age old problem of limiting omnipotence.  It just doesn't work very well.  He defies our neatly trimmed borders.  God does speak to people in very personal ways ... visions, dreams, revelations, etc...  The balance I think is that personal "revelation" should always be tested against the truth revealed in the written word.  It is our template, to which all "copies" must relate, lest they turn out to be forgeries.


Stephen.  

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
76 posted 2004-01-23 10:48 PM


Good point Stephanos, was going to go into the Logos, Gnostic and Kabbalic view of things as well but got lazy and simplified
Copperbell
Senior Member
since 2003-11-08
Posts 956

77 posted 2004-01-24 12:43 PM


I can't give all the information that everyone here has, but I believe Jesus is God.  The only thing I can really say is that I am convinced that I have experienced Him, and that what He said about Himself is true.

There is an interesting book called the Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel.  He was not a believer of Christ and he set out to disprove Christianity - I think his wife became a christian and he didn't like it.  He is/was a legal journalist and he used all of the tools that he would use in his job and applied them to christianity.  Yes, he did come to believe, but in the book he goes through the arguements that people have and he shares his notes so that you can decide for yourself what you think.  There's alot of information; its not light reading, but very logical and understandable, unlike some theological type stuff.

What I would like to tell you Michelle, is that its worth figuring out - I know there's alot of hypocrites or judgemental or grouchy, stuffy people, but I don't believe Christ is anything like that.  In my experience being a christian is one huge adventure - and its good. I can go on forever, but one thing I will say is that I have an extremely successful marriage that I wouldn't otherwise have because of the wisdom that I have used from the Bible.  And I'm not a doormat.

Take care girl.

Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189
Pennsylvania
78 posted 2004-01-24 06:41 AM


Well said stephen,,,but, how many men/women stop to cross reference feelings, experience, the book, etc,,,,,,there in lies the weakness....

Copperbell, I am happy for you that you have experienced such an encounter,,,,to me, its not a reality,,,like meeting an alien,,,,I have seen those that have had the religious experience ina good way,,and they seem happy.
Kudos on a happy marriage, Mike and I are happily engaged,,,that feeling, I can shere to the nth degree.

I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike

Severn
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704

79 posted 2004-01-24 07:02 AM


You asked me my views Michelle.

I went to church for two and a half years, and was burned by hypocrisy.

I've asked questions that no Christian has ever been able to answer - except with the usual answers - 'we're sinners', 'it's God's will', 'God has many mysteries.'

I guess my questions are also ones Jesus didn't 'feel' like answering.

The bible, on a whole, terrifies me. I take little comfort from it. I've read it from beginning to end - I'm not ignorant and, again as a whole, it reads disjointed and contradictory.

I've been to sermons where one or two verses are 'interpreted' at the will of the sermoniser. Supposedly by divine inspiration.

I know I'm tired of how people gush that God has blessed them with a miracle because a woman of 80 survives an earthquake in Iran while 30,000 others die.

That's not God. That's circumstance.

I've attended three years of anthropology at university with a focus in some classes on religion and myth - I came out a different person.

My brain battles with my heart - my heart wants there to be a loving, protecting God...my brain constantly reasons why there might not be. It truly is a constant battle.

K

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
80 posted 2004-01-24 07:06 AM


I believe nature, that remains in everything must be the truer road to God than words.  Men forget words, men confuse them, men corrupt them; but when a spirit is held in nature, and nature is held in a spirit they are like one and do not need words to hold them that way.  We do pursue holding them in words though.  Words may help us judge each other, remember better, edify our structure.  But standing under, or understanding all things is still nature that remains the irremoveable "ground" off which we grow.  We didn't "create" or "shape" that one, but book we use we did.
In other words, I believe through nature we may directly find God, but through words only symbollically.  

[This message has been edited by Essorant (01-24-2004 08:52 AM).]

Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189
Pennsylvania
81 posted 2004-01-24 07:55 AM


severn,,,,,,I know exactly where you are coming from,,,I abhor the fact a good "christian" pastor will beat to death a few disjoined verses,,,,,and yes,,,,I, for resaons I care not to discuss, have read the bible cover to cover many times,,,,
It is a shame,,,that any "loving, forgiving, caring god",,,has been lost in the shuffle of men using the name there of,,,,to their own device,,,i.e..."holy wars",,,the inquisition, witch trials,,on down to piddly pulpit thumpers using "gods anger" to pull a few more bux for the collection plate.
"religion", has all but killed off any "god" that was kind and loving,,,it confuses me to no end,,,,to hear the words,,,"hes a kind loving god",,,and "it was his will" when some tragic thing takes a loved one away....
agreed, circumstance,,right place right time, wrong place wrong time,,,is what forms 99% of our world,,,,,I do not fear the "bible",,,but,,,how man uses it,,,,,sad comparison here,,but,,,the phrase ,,,"guns dont kill people,,people kill people" fits,,,,"the bible didnt make god a vindictive , evily jealous god,,,people did"
Michelle

I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

82 posted 2004-01-24 09:25 AM


Just some thoughts bouncing around in my head:

I think without a 'point of reference' when coming to the Scriptures it will be confusing and seem disjointed. Man is always trying to harmonize all the seeming contradictions. I guess that is one of theology's purposes, to try to make sense of the whole of Divine revelation.

My personal point of reference is called Dispensational, i.e., that God's dealings with man are broken down into different 'economies' in different ages, as distinguised from Covenant Theology.

Here are some excerpts from an article defining Dispensational Theology By Charles C. Ryrie to give you a basic idea between Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology:

Nondispensational interpreters (of the covenant theology school) have been guilty of reading back (and sometimes forcing) the teaching of the New Testament into the Old, especially in an effort to substantiate their doctrine of salvation in the Old Testament. Dispensationalists, on the other hand, sometimes make such hard and fast distinctions between the ages and characteristics of the various dispensations that they, for instance, have said very little about grace in the Old Testament. However, the covenant theologian's faulty interpretation is a result of a basically inherent defect in his system (because he subsumes everything since the Fall under the one covenant of grace), whereas the dispensationalist's lack is not in the system but in the expounding of it. Covenant theology allows for and even demands this reading back of the New Testament into the Old. Dispensational theology, while recognizing definite and distinguishable distinctions, asserts the basic unity of the unfolding plan of God in the Scriptures.

To summarize: Progressive revelation views the Bible not as a textbook on theology but as the continually unfolding revelation of God given by various means throughout the successive ages. In this unfolding there are distinguishable stages of revelation when God introduces new things for which man becomes responsible. These stages are the economies, stewardships, or dispensations in the unfolding of His purpose. Dispensationalism, therefore, recognizes both the unity of His purpose and the diversity in the unfolding of it. Covenant theology emphasizes the unity to the point of forcing unwarranted, inconsistent, and contradictory interpretations of the Scriptures. Only dispensationalism can maintain unity and diversity at the same time and offer a consistent system of interpretation.

Though God's purpose for Israel and God's purpose for the church receive the most attention in Scripture, God has purposes for other groups as well. He has a purpose and plan for the angels, which in no way mixes with His purposes for Israel or the church (2 Peter 2:4; Rev. 4:11). He has a purpose for those who reject Him, which also is distinct from other purposes (Prov. 16:4). He has a plan for the nations, which continues into the New Jerusalem (Rev. 22:2), and those nations are distinct from the bride of Christ. God has more than two purposes even though He reveals more about His purposes for Israel and His purpose for the church than He does about the other groups.

Another definition also includes descriptive elements:

A dispensation is God's distinctive method of governing mankind or a group of men during a period of human history, marked by a crucial event, test, failure, and judgment. From the divine standpoint, it is a stewardship, a rule of life, or a responsibility for managing God's affairs in His house. From the historical standpoint, it is a stage in the progress of revelation.[19]

The differentiation of viewpoints in this definition is a helpful distinction. A dispensation is from God's viewpoint an economy; from man's, a responsibility; and in relation to progressive revelation, a stage in it.

The essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the church. This grows out of the dispensationalist's consistent employment of normal or plain or historical-grammatical interpretation, and it reflects an understanding of the basic purpose of God in all His dealings with mankind as that of glorifying Himself through salvation and other purposes as well.

The entire article can be found at this link:
http://www.gospelpedlar.com/dis_dispensation.html


Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189
Pennsylvania
83 posted 2004-01-24 10:25 AM


thank you for you views denise,,,,,,well put forth,,,,and thank you for your link,,,,
Michelle

I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike

Copperbell
Senior Member
since 2003-11-08
Posts 956

84 posted 2004-01-24 11:32 AM


Severn and Michelle - I just want to throw something out there.  The bible says to have a childlike faith.  So why don't you ask Him?  Why don't you ask Him to show you that He does exist? If He does, then He will, right?  So you can expect that if He exists that He will work to show you Himself. If you have asked Him that, then you can continue to expect that He is working on showing you Himself.

I've heard many people starting with Jesus Himself - who the heck was that guy, because He did exist and He said He was God.  People don't just walk around and say they are God.  And those who do, well you know where they end up.  As well, His disciples died horrible deaths, and endured so much...If they thought He wasn't fully with it, they certainly wouldn't have done what they did. He either was God or not because if He was only a great teacher but not God, He's not worth listening to because He is a liar.

Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189
Pennsylvania
85 posted 2004-01-24 12:58 PM


Honestly,,,,
I have nothing to say to "god",,,nor do I want anything from him
Michelle

I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
86 posted 2004-01-24 03:05 PM


Denise my problem with that theory is that many of the stories are not original to the bible. Many of the tales evolved from or were outright stolen from older cultures, religions and their dieties. So to sift through the stories and try to decipher a clear cut coherent plan from God himself seems futile.
Severn
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704

87 posted 2004-01-24 04:05 PM


quote:
'Severn and Michelle - I just want to throw something out there.  The bible says to have a childlike faith.  So why don't you ask Him?  Why don't you ask Him to show you that He does exist? If He does, then He will, right?  So you can expect that if He exists that He will work to show you Himself. If you have asked Him that, then you can continue to expect that He is working on showing you Himself.


'bell...that's very sweet, and very idealistic. I have a question for you - it may seem unrelated. I don't even expect an answer in here, because it's personal, but it's something for you to think on. Did you have a close, loving relationship with your earthly father? I suspect that you might have, but I could be wrong.

At any rate, I didn't. I lost all ability at any kind of childlike faith in anything when I was around..oh..9?

I've asked him. Many times. He's even shown me...yes..that's right - I've had answers. I don't care to share the experiences right now, they're personal. These experiences are the ONLY things that force my heart to continue wanting to believe. My brain says things like - coincidence, random brain behaviour, wanting to believe so they seem real.

One personal thing - the only way I can talk to God about anything anymore is if I visualise a ladder that climbs up the huge wall that's there between He and I. Most of the time I don't make it up the ladder.

Someone said to me simply just a few weeks ago 'so tell Him' about something I had on my mind.

Crawled up the ladder, told him, feel the same.

Mine is not a battle to be won easily. My questions and my doubts will not easily disappear. I've been there...I've been surrounded by fellowship. I believed in the bible and it used to comfort me. I had my own points of reference. I've had revelations from God, intimate times with Him. I've seen a miracle of healing.

None of it has been enough.


Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
88 posted 2004-01-25 02:13 AM


"I've heard many people starting with Jesus Himself - who the heck was that guy, because He did exist and He said He was God"

He said he was God? Where did he say he was God exactly?

Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189
Pennsylvania
89 posted 2004-01-25 05:48 AM


aenimal, from what I read in the bible,,,,,"jesus" didn't say he was god, and did his best from getting worshiped as such.

Michelle

I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
90 posted 2004-01-25 12:01 PM


"So you're omniscient now?  Are you presuming to know how God would choose to address His creation if He chose to do so?"

~ Come on, you can do better than that. I can easily say the same to you and your flock, since you all know the only true god and true way for salvation - which is much more closer to being omniscient than myself, for I claim not to know. Even, at best.

"If there is a true God, then I would think it would be His prerogative to address His creation by any means He sees fit."

~ But he created a being like me with the ability to question and think, I am sure his actions would be common-sensical.

"God is who God is, not what Opeth, or anyone, expects Him to be."

~ Oh... So, he is not what christians expect him to be?

"The rest of your post illustrates my reply to Essorant very well.  Your problem with Jesus, Opeth, is that Jesus didn't share your opinion of what questions are most important."

~ Wait a minute... I am sure his apostles asked him about the nature of the humankind and what death would be like, unless lil' ol' me is one of a kind in questioning my nature and existence. Where does it say in your bible that people are going to heaven? Where does it say we have an immortal soul? Where is the word "trinity?" If you think these questions are not important, and that only believing on Jesus is - your own book teaches otherwise.

"Furthermore, you seem to ignore some of Jesus' direct statements that do answer your questions (e.g., "No man shall come to the Father except through me"), but not in the way you want them to."

~ I sure feel sorry for all of those who lived and died and never knew that - God must be cruel to send them to "everlasting damnation" for not going "through" Jesus without ever even knowing him.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
91 posted 2004-01-25 02:15 PM


Michelle I know, it was a question directed at Copperbell who made that comment.
Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189
Pennsylvania
92 posted 2004-01-25 02:18 PM


gotcha aenimal,,,*smiles*
Opeth,,you handled those responses so very well
Michelle

I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
93 posted 2004-01-25 03:12 PM


"If there is a true God, then I would think it would be His prerogative to address His creation by any means He sees fit."

~ But he created a being like me with the ability to question and think, I am sure his actions would be common-sensical.

"God is who God is, not what Opeth, or anyone, expects Him to be."

~ Oh... So, he is not what christians expect him to be?



Amen.

Copperbell
Senior Member
since 2003-11-08
Posts 956

94 posted 2004-01-25 05:34 PM


Aenimal,
I usually don’t enter into these kinds of conversations.  There are extremely intelligent, logical thinkers here, who can articulate well… but I had to put my two cents in.

Christ claimed equality with God. He claimed that the kingdom of God is His and that He has authority over His angels – declaring ownership over them.

Thomas touched Jesus after the resurrection.  Jesus said to him “Put your finger here; see my hands.  Reach out your hand and put it into my side.  Stop doubting and believe.”
Then – Thomas said to Him, “my Lord and my God!” Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” John 20:28,29
He didn’t stop Thomas from worshipping Him.  He did not correct him, He called him blessed.

Christ said, “For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.”  He’s talking about Himself, that He is a gift to the world.  Imagine someone telling you that they are God’s gift to the rest of this world.  

The Bible is more than just reading the words but understanding what was happening.  The context of what was happening, what the people around Him were perceiving about Him, what He was saying to them and how they understood that.   They said He was blaspheming left and right because what He was saying was not appropriate for a man to be saying about himself.

I just wanted to share what I know of Christ – a verbal conversation would be so much easier – but I (I know this is subjective) really believe I have experienced Him and I think He’s awesome! I know my beliefs are offensive to some and ridiculous to many. If He’s real then He can reveal Himself to anyone who asks Him. Yup, I’m idealistic - But I’ve seen so much,  I  can’t help it, I am convinced.

A little honesty here -as much as this thread may be profitable, I thought the point of the matter would be best answered from the source, which would mean a little faith and of course an answer to the prayer.

374 words – I hate writing responses this long -sorry

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
95 posted 2004-01-25 08:55 PM


Raph, Sorry that it took me so long to get back on this one ... but I wanted to respond in some detail.  And life goes on with work, family, etc... In my following post, I'm going to talk about two positions which I believe are reasonably indefensible ... 1) Jesus was merely a charismatic Jew, zealous for the law and traditions, after the spirit of former prophets & 2) The "Secret Gospel of Mark" shows that the scriptures were altered, and that there was intentional mishandling and obscuring of texts by the Church at large.


quote:
As always Stephanos you bring up some excellent points, however, my problem with some of them
is that they're based on the assumption that the narratives have survived unaltered. This simply isn't
the case.

But there simply isn't any evidence that they have been altered.  As I've already pointed out to Opeth, we have many early manuscripts to compare with late ones.  Therefore we know the exact alterations, which are of a minor sort.  Most of them involving grammar, syntax, additions of words here and there.  But none of them would threaten or alter any fundamental doctrines of Christianity.  I would heartily welcome you to present a comprehensive argument about how the texts were corrupted ... so that the later manuscripts represent a very different body of text, than the early ones.  I am quite prepared to present the argument that they are amazingly uniform.  Let the record speak ... not merely claims that a certain change "must have happened".  


There is also nothing to show that the message was corrupted between the events and the writing of the gospels.  And the length of time is not as much as most suppose.  But even if it was, the assumption of falsification based on mere time, is not valid.  And as I mentioned above, the gospels were written (as most scholars agree) with the use of oral tradition, written fragments, other synoptic writers, and eyewitnesses.  The time frame is consistent with the documentary process of that culture.  In short, the only way to come to the conclusion that something MUST have been changed is to employ, as N.T. Wright calls it, "a ruthless hermeneutic of suspicion".  


quote:
One cannot underestimate just how much the original teachings and accounts of Jesus would have
been changed to suit this audience.

and . . .
quote:
You have to assume that any political overtones, would have been excised from the texts.

and ...
quote:
Changes would have to have been made


I see a serious pattern of question begging here.  You are assuming (maybe from your life in a "politically correct" age?) that men could not write anything truthful or sincere, as long as social conditions existed which would make it difficult to stand by.  Your "have to assume" attitude, is itself an assumption, that many deny.


quote:
there are, of course, some obvious evidence of this already. For
example there is no mention or criticism of Roman occupation from Jesus or the writers despite the historical
turmoil.



This is no obviously political move ... at least not "political" in the sense of cowing to a fear of Rome.


If you recall, the common Jewish conception of "Messiah" was a political one.  Much further from the spiritual ideal, they imagined a militaristic, charismatic leader who would conquer Rome and restore Israel to her former national glory.  


In the Gospel narratives, Jesus is constantly trying to downplay this misconception of the "Messiah".  That's why he didn't openly claim to be the Messiah.  That's why he refused it when they attempted to make him a King.  That's why he burst the "hopes" of his disciples over and over again, whenever they leaned on their faulty Jewish ideas of the Messiah.  The scriptures which have an affinity to the Zealot ideal, can be taken out of context to say that Jesus was a Zealot.  But, while Jesus and his disciples held common strands of sympathy with the Zealots, he never sought to entertain it.  It had a wrong assumption in it's foundation ... even if the upper stories looked like what Jesus wanted to build.  


Here is the difference.  Jesus also saw Rome as one of the "Kingdoms of this World", which would be overthown by God ... ultimately by the Kingdom of God.  But Jesus saw this as something God would bring about eschatologically, not something that would be forced temporally by use of arms.  That's why he could teach his disciples to pray "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven", and then in the same breath, to pray "Forgive us of our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us".


The Zealots were more of the Maccabean ideal.  They were insurrectionists.  To them the Kingdom of God was "Jihad".  


I see a balance in the scripture because of who Jesus was in his understanding of "The Kingdom of God".  You see it as changes brought by political fear.  But there is no proof of the change.  That's why Jesus could have for disciples a tax collector "Matthew" (the ultimate traitor to the Romans), AND a zealot, "Simon".  These two were placed side by side because Jesus was pitting the error in both extremes against each other, and the truth in both extremes to compliment each other.  It is the perfect balance of rendering to Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, and to God that which is God's.


quote:
There is lifting of blame from the Romans unto the Jews, especially in the a biblical account of the
compassionate and understanding Pontius Pilate, whose hands were tied, versus the historical records of the
man.



The biblical account actually portrays Pilate as rather apathetic toward the charge of blasphemy made by the Jews (Romans were typically disinterested in Jewish religious matters), and unconvinced that Jesus was an insurrectionist, which was the charge that he called himself a King.  As innocent as Jesus appeared to be, Pilate wanted popularity with the Jews more than justice.  Warned by his wife through a dream, Pilate willingly gave Jesus to the will of those who wanted him crucified.  This paints no picture of a man without blame ... nor does it paint a picture of a man with his "hands tied".  He gave in to a temptation to dispense of a peasant prophet, in order to keep peace, and avoid a headache.  None of this really contrary to history


quote:
Also, thanks to the discovery of a letter from the Bishop of Clement we know that there were changes
made to the gospel of Mark. Clement freely admits there is  far more to the gospel then what we have read
and that the Secret Gospel of Mark  is "..most carefully guarded, being read only to those being initiated
into the great mysteries..For not all true things are to be said to all men." We're not talking about a mere
editing or noncanonical book, but a secret version kept from the public by the church.



You’ve quoted this grossly out of context.  Your second sentence doesn’t even relate directly to your first sentence in the supposed letter of Clement.  He was actually first refuting a certain Gnostic interpretation of "The Secret gospel of Mark" by the Carpocratians... and then later referred to what he considered to be genuine "mystical teachings" of the apostles in the SGM.


Here is the preamble with your quotes placed back in context.  I have highlighted them, so others can see exactly what they refer to.


quote:
From the letters of the most holy Clement, author of the Stromateis.

To Theodore:

You have done well in muzzling the unmentionable doctrines of the Carpocratians.  It is they who were prophetically called 'wandering stars' (Jude 13), who stray from the narrow way of the commandments into the fathomless abyss of fleshly sins committed in the body.  They have been inflated with knowledge, as they say, of 'the deep things of Satan' (Rev. 2:24).  They cast themselves unawares into the gloom of the darkness of falsehood (Jude 13).  Boasting that they are free, they have become the slaves of lusts that bring men into bondage.  These people must be totally opposed in every way.  Even if they were to say something true, not even so would the lover of truth agree with them; everything that is true is not necessarily truth.  Nor should one prefer the apparant truth which is according to human opinions to the real truth which is according to faith.  But of the matters under dispute concerning the divinely inspired Gospel of Mark, some are utterly false and some, even if they contain certain things that are true, are not truely delivered;  for the things that are true are corrupted by those that are fictitious, so that, as it is said, 'the salt has lost it's savour' (Mt. 5:13/Lk. 14:34).

Mark then, during Peter's stay in Rome, recorded the acts of the Lord, not however reporting them all, for he did not indicate the mystical ones, but selected those which he thought most useful for the increase of the faith of those undergoing instruction.

When Peter had borne witness (i.e. suffered martyrdom), Mark arrived in Alexandria, taking his own and Peter's memoirs.  From these he copied into his first book the things appropriate for those who were making progress in knowledge but compiled a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were attaining perfection.  Yet not even so did he divulge the unutterable things themselves, nor did he write down the Lord's hierophantic teaching.  But adding to the previously written acts others also, he presented, over and above these, certain oracles whose interpretation he knew would provide the hearers with mystical guidance into the inner shrine of the seven-times-hidden truth.  Thus, then, he made advance preparation- not grudgingly or incautiously, as I think- and on his death he left his composition to the church in Alexandria, where even until now it is very well guarded, being read only to those who are being initiated into the great mysteries

But abominable demons are always devising destruction for the human race, and so Carpocrates, having been instructed by them, used deceitful devices so as to enslave a certain elder of the church in Alexandria and procured from him a copy of the mystical Gospel, which he proceeded to interpret in accordance with his own blasphemous and carnam opinion.  Moreover, he polluted it further by mixing shameless falsehoods with the hooly and undefiled sayings, and from this mixture the dogma of the Carpocratians has been drawn out.  To these people, then, as I have said already, one must never yield, nor must one make any concession to them when they pretend what their tissue of falsehoods in the mystical Gospel of Mark, by rather deny it with an oath.  It is not necessary to speak all the truth to everyone;  that is why the wisdom of God proclaims through Solomon: ‘Answer a fool according to his folly’ (Proverbs 26:5)- meaning that from those who are spiritually blind the light of the truth must be concealed.  Scripture also says, ‘From him who has not will be taken away’ (Mk. 4:25) and ‘Let the fool walk in darkness’ (Eccles. 2:14).  But we are the sons of light, having been illuminated by ‘the dayspring from on high’ of the Spirit of the Lord (cf Luke 1:78), ‘and where the Spirit of the Lord is’, scripture says, ‘there is liberty’ (2 Cor. 3:17); for ‘to the pure all things are pure’ (Titus 1:15).  To you then, I will not hesitate to give an answer to your questions, exposing those people’s falsehoods by the very words of the Gospel.



This quote shows that Clement (if indeed this fragment of writing was produced by him- scholars are unagreed on this), did accept that there was a piece of literature written by Mark ... a more “spiritual” Gospel.  In the above text, he was refuting the gnostic interpretation of the SGM, and at the same time affirming that certain esoteric writings should be hidden from people for the very reason that they tend to distort it.  He was justifying a “common” text for the people, and other texts for the “initiated” in higher truths.  

Clement  has got himself into a quandary here.  For one, the whole idea that there was a gospel for the common herd, and a seperate one for the higher minded, is a gnostic heresy ... the idea of a two-tiered truth.  Paul and other biblical writers refuted the Gnostic heresy within the canonical scriptures themselves, and definitely taught against such elitism (as expressed in "esoteric" gospels).  And so clement tries to defend a text which has a definite gnostic flavor, from it’s own congruent gnostic interpretations.  That’s like trying to separate a turtle from it’s shell, and then to call it two different animals.  There is good evidence that this “Secret Gospel of Mark” was written by Gnostic groups, not Mark.  What evidence do we have that Clement (though no doubt a Christian and an honest man) might have been subject to error about this?  Well he also accepted many texts, which have been shown to be spurious.  In other words, his track record ain't so great.


Here is what F.F. Bruce wrote about the “Secret” Gospel of Mark:

quote:
... That the letter-writer was disposed to acknowledge it (SGM) as part of a fuller edition of Mark’s Gospel, written by the evangelist himself, is quite in line with evidence which we have of Clement’s credulity in face of apocryphal material.  He treats the work entitled the Preaching of Peter as a genuine composition of the apostle Peter, and he similarly accepts the authenticity of the Apocalypse of Peter.  We shall see, too, how readily he acknowledges as dominical, sayings ascribed to Jesus in the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the Gospel of the Egyptians, explaining them in terms of his own philosophy.

(F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, 308)

And ...
quote:
As for the ‘secret’ Gospel of Mark, it may well ahve come into being within the Carpocratian fellowship, or a similar school of thought.  That ‘Clement’ thought it went back to Mark himself is neither here nor there, in view of the historical Clement’s uncritical acceptance of other apocrypha.  The raising of the young man of Bethany (found in the SGM) is too evidently based- and clumsily based at that-  on the Johannine story of the raising of Lazarus for us to regard it as in any sense an independent Marcan counterpart to the Johannine story (not to speak of our regarding it as a source of the Johannine story).  Since this conclusion is so completely at variance with Professor Smith’s carefully argued case, one must do him the justice of giving his case the detailed consideration which it deserves.  But this lecture presents my inintial assessment of the document which he has discovered and published.

Bruce’s footnote: My assessment of the document remains substantially the same fifteen years later.

(Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, 315)



So the whole thing about this secret Gospel, proving that the canonical Gospel of Mark was substantially changed, has two huge problems going against it.


1)Clement was not known for being sufficiently critical of apocryphal texts, and spurious writings which purported to be apostolic.

2) There is textual evidence that the “SGM” was derivitive from John, while at the same time, John was derivitive somewhat from the canonical gospel of Mark.  Can’t have your cake and eat it too.


Here is another link with some interesting information surrounding this text ... info which you will find quite challenging to your theory:
  

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qbadmark.html


Though I don't think you've done much to cast serious doubt upon the historicity of the gospels,  I do thank you for the opportunity to respond to such interesting questions.


Stephen.

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes
96 posted 2004-01-26 01:01 AM


I must admit that this has been a very interesting thread to read, and we have been given much to ponder and scrutinize, and such... there are a fwe things I would like to throw in here, in my own feeble way.

"...there are no records of an alternate narrative which might reflect the “true” account of Jesus.  What we have in the gospels is “it”..."

Stephan, I would challenge you to read a book called "The Other Bible" if you have not had the opportunity already. For my own thoughts, the Gospel according to Thomas, is a rather interesting read, and if one takes the time to truly study, and "savor" the words, (for lack of a better phrase) and really look into what he is saying, then one gets a new way of seeing the "true" gospels.

A teaching of Jehovah Witnesses,,,,,states that , all the ones who died before, get awakened into the "1000 year reign of peace" on earth to get their rewards, when "jesus" comes back,,,,,

This is actually a belief held by many "Christians"  whether they know it or not... The most popular Christian Rock band in history (Petra) had a song called The Grave Robber and used the lyrics "When the last enemy is gone/ From the dust will come a song/ Those asleep will be awakened/ not a one will be forsaken" Although Perta is not JW's they used that line of thinking, and most Christians I have talked to who know the song, agree with everything they are singing.

Actually the Gnostic stuff is highly influenced by Eastern religous ideas ...

Christianity draws from so many of the World's major religions that it's hard to keep track of any original thoughts on the subject (and this coming from a follower of Christ's teachings). The Creation story can be seen from Sumerian texts. The "De-Creation" story is Babylonian. Greek and Roman mythology talks about a "central" deity with the power over the rest, and then there are several "lessor" heavenly beings... Such as the saints... and each of the lessor beings had their own realm of control, such as the Catholic Faith's practice of having a patron saint of pert near everything. An before the hate mail starts, I was raised Catholic,and am raising my kids Catholic to give them a base to work with before I tell then to figure it out for themselves.

christians pray for "thy kingdom come?" Which kingdom? The heavenly kingdom. Coming to where?

Opeth- The way I have always believed this is that the Kingdom isn't coming to us in the was the accepted Earth-bound physics would have us believe. It is in more of a spiritual coming together... more or less, us going to them... we say that "Jesus" came into our hearts, when- in actuality- we went to Him... same thing.

what I really don't get is how you and your fellow christians are so certain that you "got it right" and even the Jewish people and all of the Rabbis and scholars "got it wrong."

Isn't it amazing how most Christians (especially the "good" ones) want to share their ideas with you, however the are not interested in sharing your ideas with them???

Which other religion besides christianity thinks its got the "market cornered" on knowing the true god and salvation?

The "extreme" islam factions would fit this category. I am definately NOT talking about the folloews of the Islamic faith, and those who study what the Honorable Ilijah Mohammed (apologies for the spelling errors) and believe in Peace,Love nad Faith. I am talking about the "Born-Again Radical Muslims" who commit crimes in the name of Allah (Hmmmmm sounds like another religion I've heard about). Those guys are of the "you don't follow us, we will kill you" belief.

In the perfect world we would all enjoy,,,we could all agree to disagree, and find whatever we are looking for, be it salvation, peace, forgiveness, without someone tearing our beliefs apart

Michelle- that "perfect" world... or as close as you're gonna get... is called Passions In Poetry... and for proof, I offer this thread, and the one about the Mel Gibson Movie, and almost every other religious discussion on here.

..."god" supposedly created us in "his own image",,,so, wouldn't it make sense that he would want to communicate thru words?...
You have just been tried and convicted of what many of us on here have all done at one point or another... taking one phrase out of context and using it to further your views, or a point you wish to make. Yes, it is believed that G-d made us in His image... however, it is also true, as far as I have been told, that most of the religions see that to mean that we are made in His/Her SPIRITUAL image...just for that, no hug this week.

Why don't you ask Him to show you that He does exist? If He does, then He will, right?

I was actually waiting for this argument to come up... I am not using this as a personal attack, however, this is one of the most arrogant one-liners that I hear when discussing religion with anyone... and, believe me copperbell, I discuss things with "good Christians" from time to time and this almost ALWYS comes up. WE call Him the Father (or Her the Earth Mother), and then people make the statement that we should tell him to prove his existence to us. Or we say that if there was a G-d, then he would answer our prayers, and he never seems to answer our prayers when we call on him. As any of us who ever had parents, or for those of us who have kids, we all know that the Children NEVER get everything they want. And mothers and fathers NEVER give children the answers to every question they ask. and most parents (myself, included) tend to completely ignore any DEMAND from our children.
To answer your statement, though... I can offer more proof than you would probably want me to as to whether He/She exists.
I was a professional EMT for a number of years, aqnd a professional firefighter for a few years longer than that. There were times when I was in WAY over my head with a patient... when there was no way that I was good enough to save a particular patient. there have been times where, according to ALL medical facts, a paitent should have never made it to the ER alive... yet, they did. There was one particular case where a fire/rescue team searched a room thoroughly and yet I found a child that they missed, after I was told the room was searched, and still HAD to go look again.
Or the fact that Marine Aircraft Firefighters, most of them, "istinctively" know when there is going to be a mishap on any given day.
Then there was the time I did CPR for almost 45 minutes because we were so far out of the way that one of the guys friends had to use an ATV to go call an ambulance, and then bring the Paragods back, and then we loaded the victim onto a backboard between 2 ATV's and carted him slowly to the ambulance, and then into the hospital, and the patient survived... even though NO ONE survives more than 30 minutes on CPR.
Or maybe the time when my father fell 50 feet onto the ground with packed earth and rocks and tree roots with his 8 year old son watching, and only got a sprained wrist.
How about the time I had my 3 month old daughter and my 6 year old son in the back seat of a Plymouth Horizon, and had a 1970's Buick pull into oncomiong traffic and crash a 1980's Caddy less than 30 feet in front of me, when I was doing about 65 MPH, and I vividly heard a voice tell me to aim for the crash. I had been up for over 24 hours, and had been driving for 3 hours, and my reflexes were no where neaqr fast enough to miss the accident, or the car that was thrown into my path, or the car that was no in the other lane... SOMEHOW, I manuvered between the cars on a small 4 lane highway, and didn't even scratch the paint, and the two cars that crashed ended up back together as soon as my car got through... Some might say they are all coincidence, however, I have yet to find an emergency services worker who would believe you.

I've heard many people starting with Jesus Himself - who the heck was that guy, because He did exist and He said He was God

I always was taught that he called himself the Son of Man... NOT the Son Of G-d.

Anyhow...this thing is too long... even for me (lol) and it is gone 0100, and time for this little gray duck to quack off to bed.
I didn't answer to everything that I wanted to, however, I am giving you all a repreive.
Whatever one it is you subscribe to,Keep the faith.

Cause in my dreams it's always there
The evil face that twists my mind
And brings me to despair.

Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189
Pennsylvania
97 posted 2004-01-26 09:38 AM


copperbell, the 4 boys, (mat, mark, luke, john) give 4 versions of what happened when "jesus" reapeared,,,,,,only john gives anything to the doubting thomas deal, the other 3 say thomas was among the 11 when "jesus" came by,,,,,john says he wasnt, and didnt "believe" till he got a special visit 8 days later.......makes me wonder why it was so important for one fella to get such special treatment

stephan....to you, i bow to the fact you believe whole heartedly that the scriptures are untainted, ever wonder what all happened that wasnt written in the good book? boggles.

Ringo,,,,,dear,,,,no hug,,,because I quoted something? pardone a moi for not using little quotation marks. You, of all people know my stand,,that 99% of it all is bunk,,,,that is strictly my opinion,,,to which i am allowed, as are all others in this forum,,,so,,here goes,,,,,,gads I hate this,,,,,,Genesis , chapter1, verse 26,,,,,"and god said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
verse 27....so, god created man in his own image, in the image of god created he him, male and female, he created he them.
from those verses,,I gather,,,that we were created in his image,,,and likeness,,,,so,,,wouldn't that cover the spiritual angle,,,and physical?...
just a thought,,,,,,,
and,,,if I so deem myself as wanting a hug,,I'll take one , :p
Michelle

I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
98 posted 2004-01-26 10:22 AM


If those passages are to be taken quite literally, Michelle, then should we all look exactly the same?
Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
99 posted 2004-01-26 10:39 AM


Image and likeness, would include our ability to think and reason, that we have only one head, that we have 2 arms and 2 legs, a general likeness in image.

We share a likeness and image, but that doesn't mean we have to be identical.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
100 posted 2004-01-26 11:17 AM


"Image and likeness, would include our ability to think and reason"

Why would a being who knows everything all at once, need to think and reason?
It would be decent if God didn't have to be "allperfect," something which originally the word "god" itself didn't imply. That's because any pagan Gods were not absolutly perfect
Perhaps they might not believe that a Spirit is perfect because bodies are not (or do not seem so).
But perfectionists may not accept anything but perfectionism.  

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
101 posted 2004-01-26 11:21 AM


Arguing from a biblical standpoint, are you saying God couldn't ever be persuaded to take another course of action?

Besides, you missed the point I was making. In Genesis, it states that every creature was created after the creature's kind. Surely, since humankind was created after the Godkind, we as humans are capable of thinking and reasoning like God.

Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189
Pennsylvania
102 posted 2004-01-26 11:22 AM


I think it would be unfair to any omnipotent being to say they dont need to think and such,,,,,,If "he" knows all already,,then we are just waiting out the inevidible,,,what ever that may be,,,,
and no,,ay means we all have to look identical,,,,,,I have a son, he is made in my image, and his fathers,,,,there are similarities,,,but, he is his own person, looks wise and, goodness knows, mentality wise
and, since we are "all gods children", as limited as our human little minds can handle,,,,,,we ae in his image,,,but, not clones
Michelle

I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike

Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189
Pennsylvania
103 posted 2004-01-26 11:26 AM


if I follow my fables correctly opeth,,,,you got it right,,,since Eve took a chomp of that apple, we all have the choices to make. "like gods we know good and evil"...until then,,,,we supposedly were tra la laing along, happy in our little garden,,,,,so,,if you go by the book, till we were tempted to go for it, we didnt think like god,,,go figure......

I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
104 posted 2004-01-26 11:37 AM


Arguing from a biblical standpoint, are you saying God couldn't ever be persuaded to take another course of action?

Not if he's allperfect to begin with.

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
105 posted 2004-01-26 11:44 AM


Then he must not be all perfect, according to you, that is. Because God (Jesus, the Word) in the OT was persuaded to change His mind on a course of action.


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
106 posted 2004-01-26 12:05 PM


So, "in his image" now means "looks similar" and "with similar abilities." Okay. How similar?

If your legs get chopped off, are you still similar to God. If your brain is deprived off oxygen long enough to lose all but autonomic functions, do you still adhere to the image of God? If the way we look and think defines our humanity, at what point does a human being cease being human?

quote:
Arguing from a biblical standpoint, are you saying God couldn't ever be persuaded to take another course of action?


Right. And can God create a rock too heavy for him lift?

What people keep forgetting is that any absolute, whether it be omnipotence or omniscience, creates a self-referencing paradox. Such paradoxes are a mathematical necessity to our semantic structure, but can NOT be resolved within our semantic structure. "This sentence is false" is a self-referencing paradox that cannot be resolved. When dealing with absolutes, it is almost child's play to invent paradoxes because any absolute carries within it its own contradictions.



Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
107 posted 2004-01-26 12:25 PM


I didn't say god could be persuaded. I read it in his inspired words. So, I guess in that case god is a paradox unto himself.

Anyone can put the oxcart in front of the ox, as is the same with the analogy of a person losing her foot and therefore not being created in God's image. That would be like saying birds are not created in their own image (the birdkind) because some are born without wings.

A person, if asked to describe the image or likeness of a human being would most certainly, unless they lived with people who all have lost limbs and whatnots, would most certainly describe a human in the manner already described.  

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
108 posted 2004-01-26 12:33 PM


The only thing that ruins the bible is perfectionism.
Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189
Pennsylvania
109 posted 2004-01-26 12:53 PM


Ron, I was answering a question asked of me earlier,,,,i was pointing out that we do not have to be identical, to be int he image there of

essorant,,,,you got it
Michelle

I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
110 posted 2004-01-26 01:56 PM


I know I believe in Jesus; but I don't believe that he has to be all or else he is basically nothing.  That is foul perfectionism.
jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
111 posted 2004-01-26 05:21 PM


quote:
"So you're omniscient now?  Are you presuming to know how God would choose to address His creation if He chose to do so?"

~ Come on, you can do better than that. I can easily say the same to you and your flock, since you all know the only true god and true way for salvation - which is much more closer to being omniscient than myself, for I claim not to know. Even, at best.


If I, and my "flock," are appealing to our own sense of what is logical and rational as the basis by which God must act, then you could say the same thing.  But I don't believe I've done that.

quote:
"If there is a true God, then I would think it would be His prerogative to address His creation by any means He sees fit."

~ But he created a being like me with the ability to question and think, I am sure his actions would be common-sensical.


The capacity to question and think is a far cry from the capacity to know how the mind of God works.  Why don't you flip through a few pages of Habbakuk to see whether or not God's actions always abide by "common-sense."

quote:
"God is who God is, not what Opeth, or anyone, expects Him to be."

~ Oh... So, he is not what christians expect him to be?


Actually, to a certain degree, I agree with you on this point.  We are only capable of knowing as much about God as He is willing to reveal and only then to the extent that our individual abilities to interpret those revelations will allow.

That said, I believe Stephan has articulated very well the trustworthiness of the Old and New Testament manuscripts and the evidence supporting the veracity of the same.  While I am certainly no expert in the art of Biblical interpretation, I think I'm good enough to get the gist of it.

quote:
"The rest of your post illustrates my reply to Essorant very well.  Your problem with Jesus, Opeth, is that Jesus didn't share your opinion of what questions are most important."

[quote]Where does it say in your bible that people are going to heaven? Where does it say we have an immortal soul?


It says unambigiously enough that believers will have eternal life.  What difference does it make whether it is spent on earth or in heaven?  What difference does it make whether I enter into a "soul-sleep" pending Jesus' Second Coming or I spend the interim period in the "third heaven" Paul mentions in Collossians (I think) from Hebrew tradition?

quote:
Where is the word "trinity?" If you think these questions are not important, and that only believing on Jesus is - your own book teaches otherwise.


And neither is "Kingdom Hall" but you Russellians still persist in not calling your places of worship a "church."   But seriously, the concept is most certainly in the text.  Certainly the first chapter of the Gospel of John equates The Word [i.e., Jesus] with God at the same time it distiguishes the Word from God.  Only by butchering the original Greek can you twist the text to read otherwise.

quote:
"Furthermore, you seem to ignore some of Jesus' direct statements that do answer your questions (e.g., "No man shall come to the Father except through me"), but not in the way you want them to."

~ I sure feel sorry for all of those who lived and died and never knew that - God must be cruel to send them to "everlasting damnation" for not going "through" Jesus without ever even knowing him.


Well, I'll leave that one up to God and trust Him to make the right decision (whatever that might be).  Maybe He'll show mercy, or maybe He'll give them what we all deserve.  Who am I to judge God?

Jim

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
112 posted 2004-01-27 01:57 AM


Ess:

quote:
The only thing that ruins the bible is perfectionism.


Just wondering what you specifically mean by "perfectionism"?


Stephen.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
113 posted 2004-01-27 02:07 AM


quote:
I know I believe in Jesus; but I don't believe that he has to be all or else he is basically nothing.  That is foul perfectionism.



Sorry ... I missed this.  Now I get an idea of what you mean by "perfectonism".


The thing is, insisting on the status of Jesus as the divine savior, (indeed the only savior of humanity), or as God in the flesh, is not some arbitary decision to polarize his character.  It's not a modern attempt to make him "all or nothing", but rather conclusions drawn from things he said, and did.  


I can share some scriptures with you about things he said, which show that he really intended to leave us little room for considering him to be merely a wise man, or a good man.  Though he was indeed those things, if he didn't truly possess the divine status he claimed, he would most certainly NOT be those things.  He would be a liar, or worse.  

I think the polarization, interestingly enough, was intended by him.  Though admiring him for his human moral beauty, wisdom, courage, etc., is certainly a good transitional stage of understanding who he is,  he has made it practically impossible to equate such laurels with his fullest and final identity.  


I'll share more later, to help you see what I mean.


Stephen.

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » I need to know how you feel about "jesus"

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary