Biblical Texts: explication & discussion

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

mark noble
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 07:56 am
@ABYA,
ABYA;172671 wrote:
Mark Wrote


Hi Mark
Prior to the destruction of the second temple, commandments had thier roots in Spirituality. Earthly manifestations of the commandments was an expression of corrections that had been made within the Spiritual desire, The physical act of carrying out a commandment and the Spiritual correction that preceeded the act were considered one action.
Following the destruction of the second temple, man fell from the level of Spiritual understanding, this is what the destruction of the 2nd temple means. From this point on, man continued with the physical traditions of the commandments, but they were no longer interwoven with Spiritual corrections.
Maybe the verses you cite show a lack of Pauls understanding as they seem to disagree with Luke 1:6

All the best to you, you Swansea Jack. BLUEBIRDS, BLUEBIRDS


Hi Abya,

Of course, there are contradictions many, everywhere in the NT. I guess it depends on how literally the observer regards them.

I'm a long time lost to football, my friend. I was a fanatic only 6 years ago, I gambled, was patriotic/racist, proud/prejudiced, angry, etc, etc, etc. Then I read the book of proverbs - I have vanquished these ill-begotten traits, forever.

I know many here that would be enraged by your remark (I see it as a friendly gesture). I am currently teaching the negativity of such traits to many a (Jack).

We are all human-beings. Those divided, are divided by a patriotic/racist social system, which I chip away at...slowly.

Have a fantastic day, Abya, and Thank you, my friend.

Mark...
 
prothero
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 02:01 pm
@Jacques Maritain,
Jacques Maritain;172678 wrote:
Not really, St. Paul himself noted that the Resurrection is key to the Christian faith, or else we might as well sing today for tomorrow we die.
Yes, I would agree the resurrection is central. I would not agree that it has to be a physical material bodily resurrection. I think many in the modern age, and even in the age of the actual events, saw the resurrection as a resurrection or persistance of spirit.
Even for the most skeptical there can be little argument, that the events surrounding the life, death and resurrection have had a major impact on the world and that "something" of great significance ocurred.
It is in treating the bible as some kind of scientific text or historical accounting of factuality that one gets into trouble.
What does it matter bodily resurrection vs. spiritual resurrection? The message and meaning do not lie in those types of details or in the factual historical nature of the story at all. It is myth (in the sense of meaning and metaphor) not science or history. It is precisely in promoting the Bible as science or as history that literalists and fundamentalists hand skeptics their biggest victories.
 
ABYA
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 05:23 pm
@KaseiJin,
On the resurrection.
It does seem that the new testament promotes a physical resurrection, but there were other Christians at the time, notably the Gnostics, these were persecuted when Rome adopted the Christian faith and they hid thier books in a cave in the Nag Hamadi desert. Through lots of these books we can read of a more Spiritual understanding of Christ.
Here's a bit from the Gospel of Philip -

Those who say that the Lord died first and (then) rose up are in error, for he rose up first and (then) died. If one does not first attain the resurrection, he will not die.

Roughly, this is the Gnostic take on the resurrection.
The resurrection is something that all who desire the Creator can attain, its a degree on the path between egoism and altruism. Once we reach this level, we can work on and correct our egoism or die to ourselves.

---------- Post added 06-04-2010 at 06:29 PM ----------

Mark wrote
Quote:

I know many here that would be enraged by your remark (I see it as a friendly gesture).


I'm glad that you saw it this way, it was said very much tongue in cheek.
 
Jacques Maritain
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 08:53 pm
@KaseiJin,
Gnosticism was declared a heresy for a reason. In anycase, it was a fringe movement within early Christianity.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2010 11:53 pm
@prothero,
prothero;173028 wrote:

It is in treating the bible as some kind of scientific text or historical accounting of factuality that one gets into trouble.

I completely agree with this. In my opinion, such an interpretation reduces the value of the text.
 
prothero
 
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 12:20 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;173284 wrote:
I completely agree with this. In my opinion, such an interpretation reduces the value of the text.
It does reduce the value of the text, and in many instances such discussions completely miss the intended meaning or message. One really must see the Bible as myth in the traditional and powerful sense of the word as in Joseph Campbells "The Power of Myth". Symbollic, allegorical, metaphorical, literature, myth, yes.
History and science, no the Bible is not history or science in the modern sense of these disciplines.
 
KaseiJin
 
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 01:25 am
@prothero,
Well, the 'heavy-duty' weekend is past now, and though I've things to do around the house place, here, I'll post a little on some points, and go back into a more supported detail presentation--rather than just talking without demonstrating (the pudding is in the tasting of it).

Firstly--and guess this simply won't be able to overstressed in any way--we cannot properly read the contents of the documents we have today, without making every attempt to do so as applicable to the heat of the moment--the daily lives within the space and time, culture and setting, of both the author of the document, and the direct and immediate audience.(1) While it is quite normal to read with 'the present mind' (be that a reader of today, one in the 15th century, or even in the late second century), and while patternicity and association will automatically come out--as our H. sapiens brain is simply set up to do automatically--it is simply non-realistic to take more than what can be fairly demonstrated had been put into a document, out of it, and then argue that such meaning had been intended to have been taken by the direct and immediate audience; without fairly and accurately demonstrating the strength of such a position.

Jacques Maritain;172678 wrote:
. . . St. Paul himself noted that the Resurrection is key to the Christian faith, . . .

Krumple;172713 wrote:
It might be key, but there is nothing that provides any proof that it actually occurred. . .

Reconstructo;172730 wrote:
I suppose I'm a fringe element, because I think the resurrection is symbolic. :flowers:

ABYA;173124 wrote:
On the resurrection.
It does seem that the new testament promotes a physical resurrection, but . . .

prothero;173028 wrote:
Yes, I would agree the resurrection is central. I would not agree that it has to be a physical material bodily resurrection. I think many in the modern age, and even in the age of the actual events, saw the resurrection as a resurrection or persistance of spirit.

The order is only slightly altered (for present purposes), but this is the key point flow regarding the resurrection story. While the thread is naturally much larger in scope than just the resurrection story, it will be good to handle this point (story/motif) in good style as well. If any disagree, I strongly urge a thorough demonstration against it, yet (and this is not the first time to point this out) the reason why this resurrection thing most likely became such a big deal, is because it is very tied up with the second-coming-in -Davidic-kingly-power-as-the-messiah Yeshua motif. This latter motif is THE cornerstone of the early Christian movement, and the former is like the 'medium-of-proof' for that latter one--if Yeshua had simply died and that was to have been the end of it, what that group had (most evidently) come to have believed in (regardless of what degree of that had been due to Yeshua's teaching/leading) would die...and the group action would die; so . . ..


prothero;173028 wrote:
Even for the most skeptical there can be little argument, that the events surrounding the life, death and resurrection have had a major impact on the world and that "something" of great significance ocurred.

I challenge this wording of it here--as it evidences an overly retrospective view--while not denying the course of history which has unfolded over the past 1980 something years;especially that of the Christian church catholic
prothero;173028 wrote:
It is in treating the bible as some kind of scientific text or historical accounting of factuality that one gets into trouble. . .

Likewise, I challenge the wording herein too (see full text there), and hope to demonstrate why I do, over the course of the thread...which I will admit, will take some time (and can only hope that you, prothero, and others, would be willing to bear out).


We must keep in mind the outline (which is to be fairly trusted at face value) at Luke 1:1~4 (I'll use the New World Translation unless otherwise noted)

[indent] 1 Whereas many have undertaken to compile a statement of the facts that are given full credence among us,(2) 2 just as those who from [the] beginning became eyewitnesses and attendants of the message delivered these to us, 3 I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy to write them in logical order to you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally.
[/indent]

This is fully supported by the most evident effort to be historically correct in reporting the times, as can be seen in verses (and please do check them out): Luke 2:1, 2; 3:1, 2, 23~38; Acts 1:1~3. Not only that, but the entire area of report around the end of Yeshua's life, is very historical (as are especially the Synoptics, and even John, to a fair degree). [one might want to refer to post #79 again, and #95 again] It is not for no reason at all that the gospel genre is in the biographical narrative class, as has well been demonstrated by Richard A. Burridge(3), and to demonstrate that the reporting of the events leading up to, and after impalement are all only symbolic, is fully without grounds both within the data base used (the narratives themselves) and all points which can be used to verify both the cultural environment of the time, and the general flow of history and documentation of it in comparison with mystic writings and sage writings.

Further more, as hinted at by Jacques Maritain (#135), is it really being accurate to consider the following passages and segments to not signify any effort to provide the details of historical events:

[indent]Luke 1:5~23, 26~38; 57~66; 4:14~19, 31~445:1~11; etc., etc., etc.[/indent]

As for the understanding of the resurrection being a physical matter (although it is true that contradiction of terms can be found in our exemplars) we can look at some of the following:

[indent]
Quote:
Luke4:13,14- But when you spread a feast, invite poor people, crippled, lame, blind; and you will be happy, because they have nothing with which to repay you. For you will be repaid in the resurrection of the righteous ones.

Quote:
Luke 18:29, 30- He said to them; "Truely I say to YOU (plural), there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of god who will nt in any way get many times more in this period of time, and in the coming system of things everlasting life." (non-capital mine)

Quote:
Luke 22:16, 18- for I tell YOU, I will not eat it again until it becomes fulfilled in the kingdom of god. And, accepting a cup, he gave thanks and said . . . for I tell you, From now on, I will not drink again from the product of the vine until the kingdom of god arrives."

Quote:
Luke 24:39- See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; feel me and see, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones just as YOU behold that I have.

[/indent]

There are also some things from earlier church father material which demonstrates such an understanding as well. The Christian Gnostic movement was especially somewhat later, although some mysticism can be seen in the work According to John, and it would not be possible to really demonstrate that any material number of early Christians (mid first century) held or taught concepts other than a standing again of the very person (compare John 11:44; 12:1: 2 Kings 13:20~21; etc.)

I will continue in this line.


1. This is especially true for almost all of the mainstream Christian Greek writings, and even true for much of the mainstream Hebrew writings. Mystics in both branches, as mystics in pretty much all branches, are non-literalists, yet we have comparatively few of such; percentage wise.

2. It must be kept in mind that most likely, Luke (who we can place as the author of this document) was a member of Paul's troupe . . . and thus Eusebius seems to mistakenly refer to when insinuating 'Paul's calling it his gospel' (His. Ecc. III.IV.7, 8)

3. What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography, Second Edition; 2004.
 
KaseiJin
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 12:00 am
@KaseiJin,
Going back to help out with the development of the historical story, we should check the following (and please do so):
[INDENT]1 Kings 17:22; 2 Kings 4:35, 36; 2 Kings 13:20~21; Maccabees 7:14, 22; Daniel 12:2, 13 (compare this with Revelation 20:4~6 area)

Acts 1:22; 2:14~23, 24, 25~31; 13:13~29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34~43; 17:18, 19, 31, 32; 23:6~8; 24:10~14, 15, 16, 21; 26:19~22, 23; Romans 1:4, 6:4~11 (here an analogy is being drawn out, and application made towards a different matter; 1 Cor 15:12~26; Philp 3:4~11, 10, 12, 13
[/INDENT]Then, we find the likes of the following:
[INDENT]Irenaeus' Against heresies II.XXXIII (likely c. 250 CE; I could be wrong on this book (copy error/miss), but the chapter is correct)
[INDENT]1. . . Thus, then, he [christ] will himself renew the inheritance of the earth, and will re-organize the mystery of the glory of his sons; as David says, 'He who hath renewed the face of the earth," . . . and the resurrection of his disciples in the flesh, for new flesh which rises again is the same that also recieved the new cup [or wine at the last supper] . . .3 . . . The predicted blessing, therefore, belongs unquestionably to the times of the kingdom, when the righteous shall bear rule upon their rising from the dead; when also the creation, having been renovated and set free, shall fructify with an abundance of all kinds of food...
[/INDENT]Also, we have I.XXII (c. around same time; and the book is correct on this one)
[INDENT]1 . . . Yet, reluctant as they [the unrighteous] as they may be, these men shall one day rise again in the flesh, to confes the power of him who rises them from the dead; but they shall not be numbered among the righteous on account of their unbelief.
[/INDENT]First Apology of Justin Martyr XVIII (c. 140~150 CE)
[INDENT]Proof of Immortality and the resurrection . . . since we [who believe in god and his christ] expect to receive again our own bodies, though they be dead and cast into earth, for we maintain that with god nothing is impossible.
[/INDENT]Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians (c. mid second century)
[INDENT]1:2 and the steadfast root of your faith which was famed from primitive times abideth until now and beareth fruit unto our lord Jesus Christ who endured to face even death for our sins. whom god raised, having loosed the pangs of hades...2:2 Now he that raised him from the dead will raise us also, if we will do his will, and walk in his commandments and love the things which he loved.
5:2 ... For if we be well pleasing unto him in this present world, we shall be receive the future world also, according as he promised us to raise us from the dead, and that if we conduct ourselves worthily of him we shall also reign with him, if indeed we have faith.
[/INDENT]Quotes from Papias by Irenaeus (again, around mid second century)
[INDENT](As the elder who saw John the disciple of the lord remembered that they had heard from him how the lord taught in regard to those times, and said)[this is obviously simple hearsay, but, is from Irenaeus Haer., V. 32; and was thus going around earlier on] ...
The days will come in which vines shall grow, having each ten thousand branches. . . In like manner, [he said] that a grain of wheat would yield ten pounds of clear, pure, flour, and that apples, and seeds, and grass ....and that all animals, feeding then only on the productions of the earth, would become peaceable and harmonious, and be in perfect subjection to man.
Ignatius' epistle to the Smyrnaeans:
3:1 For I know that after his resurrection also he was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that he is now.
7:2a and above all, [give heed] to the gospel in which the passion [of christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.
[/INDENT][/INDENT]It is clear that the most likely correct understanding is that Hebrew Chiliasm, and the resurrection tenet which came with it, had been a mainstream tenet of the early (up to mid-first century, and a bit beyond it even, but much less by mid to late second century) Christian movement. According to those who have studied this is detail, we can see that actually, after Constantine's adoption of Christianity as the official Roman theist-based religious belief system, the doctrine lost out. (additionally, early persecution and massacres did succeed in destroying much of the more active, teaching early leaders . . . which may have thinkably played a large role in weakening that core of Christian doctrine, leaving only the 'bones,' (so to speak) whereby new, and slightly different 'meat' was added in place of what had actually been there, and had gotten torn away.

With this, is the most correct understanding that for the early Christians, the resurrection story had been a historical report, and the documentation was to prove that story which the very first leaders had come to be persuaded to have been the case (though we cannot know), and that others used to prove what they had been taught by them. It was to be resurrection of the person, the soul (meaning the whole of the person), and that would be one of flesh and bones.
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 03:23 am
@KaseiJin,
Why this long prolonged debate on a subject you all know by previous debates is centred on pagan beliefs. We all know it was essential in the script of any faith that certain events occurred in the life of any new god.
You all know the ancient connections to each and every god and how the sacrifice and new birth was an essential concept. The seasons and the desire to be certain that the sun will return from its fall and breath new life into the Earth. Its just wrapped up in finer clothes and with the new message. Its the new message that was the importance of Christ and it needed to embrace the security of the old faiths to gain credence. That similarity was partly its success, without this familiarity with the old gods, it would have been rejected.
 
KaseiJin
 
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 08:16 am
@xris,
The gospel narratives, as well as statements and other indications within the documents--including other somewhat early material which can be put up to around the mid second century--clearly inform us that the resurrection event had been considered by them, to have been an event in space and time; a historical event. The story told, therefore, is an effort to recreate the scenario and actions (including words spoken) of those involved in what is presented by each narrative to have been a single event, at a single point in time and space.

As touched in my earlier posts on this, it can be easily enough demonstrated that we cannot work backwards to such a single event. The more likely explanation is that the stories we have received in our texts (inclusive even of According to John, and of course, the others) are not from any said 'eyewitnesses.' Additionally, this denies any supernatural superintendence (as such is commonly understood), and especially any one single mind which would know all details of the event in full accuracy without any error at all, and which had reason to provide the fullness of such detail intentionally (as in this case, it is so overly stressed that in order for one to gain favor, and be resurrected after having died, one must fully believe in this said historical event).

What can be concluded thus far, then, on the 'morning after the Sabbath at tomb of Yeshua' story, is that kernel of the story had thinkably been lost in confabulation and multiplication of tellers during the oral tradition stages, and that as this is so dependent on, and is tied up with, the parousia doctrine, we can discount it as not being a historical event.

I will then deal with that element of the connective doctrine, and, afterwards, go into some details on how that gives us historical error and lack of a reason to see the narratives as supernaturally superintended. [This will deal some with the YHWH god model, too]
 
KaseiJin
 
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2010 02:48 am
@KaseiJin,
We can best approach the doctrine of 'the last days' and of 'Yeshua's return to rule as YHWY'S anointed messianic king from one point in According to Matthew, at verse three of chapter 24. However, to really catch the story flow provided by those four sources, and to get a feel for the historical reporting element intended by the writers, it would be good get an overview of the entire ill-fated entry into Jerusalem. For that (and again, holding Luke's work as a control), I'll first present the entry into that story, from the Luke document perspective.

At 18:31, (Luke) the story is kicked off with (again, using New World Translation unless otherwise mentioned, with non-capitals mine {other than second person plural}):


[INDENT]Then he took the twelve aside and said to them; "Look! We are going up to
[/INDENT]
[INDENT]Jerusalem, and all the things written by means of the prophets as to the son of man will be completed." (cf. {cf.=compare} Mt. 20:17f {f=and that area which follows}; Mk. 10:33f; Jn 11:55ff {double f simply signifies a larger area there after} )
[/INDENT]One matter I'd first like to bring out a little more detail on than I have up to this point, is that of quotations. In that a historio-biographic document is the primary intent of each narrative (especially the synoptics--although there is didactic embellishment in them too) the quotes provided are usually presented in direct form; as opposed to indirect quotation (reported speech). (1) In the literary era that our writings have been compiled in, quoting was a bit freer, we can fairly understand, yet the direct quote format was nevertheless used to provide the audience with the actual words spoken by a character, or person (as to the author's intent, at least).

Thus one first point is that we have direct quotations, and this function represents the intention of an author to relate the words spoken by a character in the story being told (or in a pericope within the story). The next point of consideration, which works to effectively temper the first point, is that practically all the documents (among the Christian Greek writings corpus total) are translating the direct quotes into a second language-Greek. Yeshua and those of his immediate troupe mostly (if not totally) were speakers of Aramaic of a certain dialect.

For this reason, we must keep in mind that we cannot expect 'one-word assignment' translation among the writers, or even within a single text written by a singe writer. Therefore when we compare the direct quote of Yeshua written at Mt 20:25a, with that of Mk10:42a, we can know that it's just a translation difference, and a single general sentence in Aramaic can be traced back to--from which both translations would be fair enough.


[INDENT]Mt 20:25a-oidate hoti hoi arkhontes ton ethnon katakyrieuousin auton . . .
[/INDENT]
[INDENT]Mk 10:42a-oidate hoti hoi dokountes arkhein ton ethnon katakyrieuousin auton . . .
[/INDENT]We can at times find translation differences due to circumstantial context which the story entails, and should be careful at these places as well-for example:

[INDENT]Mt 20:27b- . . . estai himon diakonos (will be of YOU servant)
[/INDENT]
[INDENT]Mk 10:44b- . . . estai panton doulos (will be of all slave)
[/INDENT]Here we can see that the contextual circumstance of the story being told (the event being related to by both narrative reports) is that Yeshua is speaking to his immediate disciples there and then. For this reason, then, to use the second person plural form can be seen as being as fair a translation into Greek as using the iliiptic 'all' in place of 'you all' (which linguistically, is the same for the circumstance of speaking to a second person plural audience with the total of that audience in mind) and here, therefore, we can reason with fairness that a single original Aramaic sentence can have been the actual words of the person being quoted.

The third point is that due to the above, we will find what will amount to historical error-that is, in that events in time and space involving real things, people, and animals (as well as said other beings) are being presented, history is being presented. In these cases, direct quotes provided by two or more reporters of a certain single event in time and space (which of course includes the acts of speaking and/or hearing) which cannot possibly be traced back to an orally communicated original Aramaic sentence, represent historical error-in that one of the two provided versions of what had been spoken would have to be false.

An example of such a case can be seen when comparing Mt 20:32 with Lk 18:41:

[INDENT]Mt 20:32b- ti thelete poieso himin? (himin=second person plural)
[/INDENT]
[INDENT]Lk 18:41a- ti soi theleis poieso? (soi=second person singular)
[/INDENT]Although the report in Matthew fits the quote to the circumstantial context of the pericope, in that both are reporting on the same event (thus both authors have received a single pericope which they are adding into the story) we can know that one quote is impossible. This is because the Aramaic, like the Greek, will have a second person singular as well as plural, and one cannot speak both at the same time, nor will one use both in a single clause, or simple sentence of this nature. This then, is a case in point of historical error.

With this then, we can follow them along on the road up to Jerusalem; from the next post.

1. We can find some 4 to 5 instances of indiect quotations in the gospel accounts.
 
KaseiJin
 
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 02:11 am
With the carry over from the old location, some of the posts have not worked out well, and the coding is really getting in the way of reading. If any wish me to repost some of them, I will. In the meantime, I'll just go on here.

We find Yeshua and his troupe moving towards the area of Jericho at Lk 18 : 35, and then going on out of that town at Lk 19:28. We will find that the other authors which use this pericope have slightly different versions of, yet the intention is clear enough; to report on what had happened in history.

At verse 29, we are told how they stopped near Bethany (Mount of Olives) and sent two disciples into that village and get a colt, and bring it too him. While it is clear from the pericope that we are still dealing with an obvious intent to report, it is also quite clear that a heavy element of wishful thinking (in the effort to apply earlier prophetic statements towards Yeshua). Luke's account tells us pretty straight forwardly that they went straight on into Jerusalem from that moment, but there are places where some small time-gaps are open.

Then, in the general dialogues that are presented as having taken place, we will find the theme of the 'kingdom of god,' and the 'Davidic king messiah.' (Lk 19:37, 38; Mt 21:43; etc.) After that we can take note of the monologue which starts at Lk21:5 (Mt 24:1; Mk 13:1)

I'll go through that next, and show how it relates to the resurrection tenet (as much as possible in the same post)
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 02:39 am
@Jacques Maritain,
Considering there is no contemporary historic records of the man jesus existing, why should his story be treated any differently than the story of Robin Hood or King Arthur? both of whom have more evidence of their existence than Christ. Its was a new and important message of improved moral standards, given credence and authority by the conceived creation of a new god. A new god who needed to mirror the old gods, so he did not appear unfamiliar.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 08:32 am
@xris,
Hi Xris.
I completely agree with this.
Best wishes.
Mark...
 
dpmartin
 
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2010 01:29 pm
@KaseiJin,
KaseiJin

There is a about a half a mile of text here, I might get to old before I read it all, so if it’s ok with you I would like to respond to your original posting, though this point may have been mentioned already.

Don’t know if this may help or not..


No one questions whether Mark Twain authored his books or not, but if my memory serves, it was his wife that penned his thoughts. Therefore he would have to speak them for her to pen them.

So truly, were is the issue in such as the Bible whether the author penned them or not? Because it’s the Bible? Or just a curious thought?

Those who penned in place of the author, still are witnesses that such words are of who ever spoke them, and toke no credit (if you will) of their own as to the source of the words. The words are spoken to an entrusted scribe, or secretary, if you will.

In the case of Moses for example, Moses wrote what the Lord God said to him. And Moses was insistent that this was not of his own mind.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2010 01:51 pm
@dpmartin,
dpmartin wrote:
In the case of Moses for example, Moses wrote what the Lord God said to him. And Moses was insistent that this was not of his own mind.


Yeah I bet if you asked anyone with a good case of psychosis if the voices in their head are real they will almost always tell you yes. So how do we know if Moses didn't have some form of psychosis? Besides that the crap that actually he recorded is just plain silliness. Climbing to the top of a mountain to talk to god and god gives him some rules and then he brings them down only to find out that the people have quickly started worshiping some other idols. How freaking long was he on the mountain? Then after all that he smashes them in his annoyance? It is nothing but childish rhetoric. If you actually take a few steps back and don't look at the story with your religious bias you can easily see that the story is complete and utter nonsense. As well as pretty much everything that is supposedly written by Moses. No one today would ever take what he would claim to be real and in fact if they did, they would be put into a hospital.

A burning bush? Seriously? come on.
Parting of the red sea? Seriously? come on.


 
dpmartin
 
Reply Sat 19 Jun, 2010 05:56 pm
@Krumple,
LOL
For some reason as soon as I posted, I felt the hair stand up in the back of my neck. If figured the last sentence would draw fire.

Krumple

thanks for the reply
 
dpmartin
 
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 08:58 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

dpmartin wrote:
In the case of Moses for example, Moses wrote what the Lord God said to him. And Moses was insistent that this was not of his own mind.


Yeah I bet if you asked anyone with a good case of psychosis if the voices in their head are real they will almost always tell you yes. So how do we know if Moses didn't have some form of psychosis? Besides that the crap that actually he recorded is just plain silliness. Climbing to the top of a mountain to talk to god and god gives him some rules and then he brings them down only to find out that the people have quickly started worshiping some other idols. How freaking long was he on the mountain? Then after all that he smashes them in his annoyance? It is nothing but childish rhetoric. If you actually take a few steps back and don't look at the story with your religious bias you can easily see that the story is complete and utter nonsense. As well as pretty much everything that is supposedly written by Moses. No one today would ever take what he would claim to be real and in fact if they did, they would be put into a hospital.

A burning bush? Seriously? come on.
Parting of the red sea? Seriously? come on.






Krumple

again thanks for the reply

In the intent of not being completely rude. I guess your posting warrants some kind of response.

As I am sure by your posting, you agree that a man can insist in his own place without God. And if you noticed it is granted, one can have his own place in the flesh without God. But God insists in His Place with man, and if one so desires, it is granted by the power of the Holy Spirit, through Jesus Christ.

I don’t see the need to be hostile about that do you?

 
Krumple
 
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2010 09:39 am
@dpmartin,
dpmartin wrote:
Krumple

again thanks for the reply

In the intent of not being completely rude. I guess your posting warrants some kind of response.

As I am sure by your posting, you agree that a man can insist in his own place without God. And if you noticed it is granted, one can have his own place in the flesh without God. But God insists in His Place with man, and if one so desires, it is granted by the power of the Holy Spirit, through Jesus Christ.

I don’t see the need to be hostile about that do you?


So what you are saying is, let the adults have their make believe invisible friend if they want a make believe invisible friend?

Okay that is fine with me. They can have their invisible friend if they want. However; I will not accept it if they are trying to push society to adopt some kind of standards based off what their invisible friend tells them.

Yet almost never does this kind of respect take place. I get approached probably every other day by someone trying to hand me some pamphlet or brochure for their church and get preached at. When I don't accept their pieces of propaganda paper I get branded as being rude or inconsiderate. If I request that it keep to itself as it should, people claim I am being unfairly critical of religion.

The day that religion does not get an excuse to being criticized and analyzed is a day that I might actually respect it, but until then I see it doing nothing but trying to impose it's will to force someone into believing in invisible friends.
 
dpmartin
 
Reply Tue 22 Jun, 2010 11:14 am
@Krumple,
Krumple

Thanks for the reply



Krumple wrote:


So what you are saying is, let the adults have their make believe invisible friend if they want a make believe invisible friend?
Okay that is fine with me. They can have their invisible friend if they want. However; I will not accept it if they are trying to push society to adopt some kind of standards based off what their invisible friend tells them.


Well it is true that if something is imaginary it is not true. Truly a fear in the case of one’s own thoughts. You can’t make something so, because you thought it, it would have to be so, before one could do it. And the only verification is to do it. Or see it done. What is true today is true yesterday and tomorrow, otherwise it’s not Truth. But it only takes one to do it. And if it only takes one. Then those who had seen it, can only repeat it. But they can’t repeat what they have not come to know.


Quote:
Yet almost never does this kind of respect take place. I get approached probably every other day by someone trying to hand me some pamphlet or brochure for their church and get preached at. When I don't accept their pieces of propaganda paper I get branded as being rude or inconsiderate. If I request that it keep to itself as it should, people claim I am being unfairly critical of religion.



I can understand in the mist of the noise the out cry is leave me alone and let me live.

Quote:
The day that religion does not get an excuse to being criticized and analyzed is a day that I might actually respect it, but until then I see it doing nothing but trying to impose it's will to force someone into believing in invisible friends.



And just for grins, in the case of word “religion” in the 1200's in English it originally meant: A state of life bound by monastic vows; the condition of one who is a member of a religious order,

monastic meaning:
Pertaining to or characteristic of persons living in seclusion from the world under religious vows and subject to a fixed rule, as monks, nuns, friars, etc.; pertaining to monasteries.

Not to think to educate, but to show how much the meaning of this word has changed over the years. If there is a Living God then He is about Life and living, not religion.

***********

Ok I’ll get off my soup box now, it’s disconcerting that in the name of religion, such things happen, as you described. But consider it this way, if they take offence when you show you don’t what to be like them. Then they are full of it. Because they are not the ones that they are to show, to be like.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/24/2021 at 09:28:58