|
The only parts of the New Testament I pay any attention to are the parts in red in my Sunday school reader. Those were the direct Jesus quotes. Everything else is garbage, imo.
I might offer that you should take another look at a couple of short books that I really feel are far from "garbage". 1 John and James. Both of these are rather short, pretty much no-nonsense approaches to what Christianity is (or should be) about.
John 1
5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.
How is it that one can exists without the other? Light, by definition needs darkness from which to compare itself to. If god created everything and darkness exists, then god created darkness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.
So man can make a liar of god/Jesus? This is not a major point. Just kind of amusing. How many different ways can John say “if we do not fallow Jesus’ teachings, we are not Christians”?
John 2
15 Do not love the world nor the things in the world If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
Now this changes the bus analogy in my eyes. If there is no bus/god there is some harm from being pushed out of the way. If we only get one chance at life and we do not live life to the fullest, that chance is wasted.
I am not saying you should just do whatever you want without concern for your fellow man. You should make the most of your life.
18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.
Maybe John should just leave the prophesying out.
22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.
I expect more from an apostle. This is little more than when an internet argument turns into name calling.
“If you do not believe me, you are the antichrist!”
28 Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming.
Is this coming just after the ‘last hour’? ‘Cause it has been a couple thousand years.
|
|
Man, you're really getting into a lot of this. Some of the questions you have are more rhetorical in nature -- however, I'll try and address some of them.
John 1
5 This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.How is it that one can exists without the other? Light, by definition needs darkness from which to compare itself to. If god created everything and darkness exists, then god created darkness.
Metaphysically speaking, do you really need "darkness" to create it? The way I see it, he made it possible for darkness to exist. This kind of goes along with the "free will" discussion. Is it truly "free will" if you don't have the ability to choose poorly? Keep in mind that his message is one of hope.
John 2
15 Do not love the world nor the things in the world If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.Now this changes the bus analogy in my eyes. If there is no bus/god there is some harm from being pushed out of the way. If we only get one chance at life and we do not live life to the fullest, that chance is wasted.
I am not saying you should just do whatever you want without concern for your fellow man. You should make the most of your life.
I'm not sure that I like the bus analogy at all. However, I'm not sure where you are getting the "one chance at life" or the "live life to the fullest" from that verse. It's talking about putting God in the back seat so to speak. Basically he's asking where your heart is.
I'd have to look up the other points to really say much. I have a feeling that much of it comes into play with context -- within the book, to who he was addressing, or the location.
With regard to the "last hour" -- a few points. I'm reminded of Indiana Jones and the Holy Grail -- "My soul's been prepared -- how's yours." Does anyone really know when they are going to "snuff it"? When exactly is someone's "last hour"? I also don't think that anyone who read that really thought that it meant 60 minutes. How long is an hour or a day or 10,000 years to someone with whom time has no meaning? The general idea is basically -- always be ready.
|
|
Just when I think I'm going to leave this thread alone I feel compelled to respond.
Courtfool, why don't you just sum up your feelings by saying you think Christianity is a silly waste of time and leave off picking apart every verse of the Bible that you disagree with. :)
The idea that light needs darkness to be light is not one I agree with. Darkness may be used to contrast light but it is not necessary to have one in order to have the other.
Two other points about John's writings and terms - the last hour, eschatologically speaking is not a literal hour, it is a figure of speech to represent the last period of time in this world. Biblical time is generally broken down into three ages - the patriarchal, the mosaical and the christian. The Christian age is refered to in both the Old and New Testament as the Latter Days, the Last Hour and the Last Days.
Also, the AntiChrist, as a single entity, is not necessarily a biblical idea. Many people confuse Paul's 'man of sin' with John's antichrist but they are not, imo, one and the same. An antichrist would simply be somebody that is against Christ and his teachings. There are, thus many antichrists in the world. It is not name-calling. It is dividing the world into two camps, those for Christ and those against Christ. In christian thought there is no middle ground.
And since I am posting, something that has been bugging me for a few days now. The word 'Almah' in Isaiah 7:14, means, most literally, a young woman of marriagable age. But translating it virgin is most certainly not in and of itself incorrect. Strong's concordance gives the meanings as, "lass (as veiled or private):--damsel, maid, virgin." and the nasc defines it as "young woman, a virgin." There is a strong cultural assumption that a chaste young woman of marriageable age and a virgin are synonomous terms. The translators of the septuagint, hebrews and hebrew scholars all, some two-hundred and fifty years before Christ thought that virgin was the best and simplest translation of Almah. Besides which, Mary, at the time of her pregnancy was a young maiden of marriageable age. The word Almah perfectly fits her now matter which definition of the word you want to use. Furthermore, Matthew, and the other New Testament writers, quoted the Septuagint, not because they were unfamiliar with the Hebrew but because they were writing in Greek and it only makes sense to use the Greek version of the Old Testament if you are writing in that language in the first place. To use Matthews quotation of the Septuagint translation of Isaiah as a reason to not trust the Bible makes no manner of sense to me at all. I understand people who don't want to believe in the virgin birth. But I don't see how Matthew's quote has any bearing on it one way or the other. Ok. Now that I've got that off my chest I feel better. :)
Man, you're really getting into a lot of this.
It was suggested I read the bible.
Some of the questions you have are more rhetorical in nature
Fair enough.
Metaphysically speaking, do you really need "darkness" to create it? The way I see it, he made it possible for darkness to exist. This kind of goes along with the "free will" discussion. Is it truly "free will" if you don't have the ability to choose poorly? Keep in mind that his message is one of hope.
I am going to go with the assumption that darkness = evil. If god made it possible for evil to exist but did not create it, then he is not the creator of all. To me, this seems a pretty big paradigm shift.
It seems hypocritical to me that god gets the responsibility of all the good in the universe with none of responsibility of evil in the universe. Now if he is not all powerful and is only capable of good, I can find that easier to believe. Who created the evil then? Humans? Not every misfortunate is caused by humans plus the capacity/desire/free will to do evil had to come from somewhere. God has to be at least partially responsible.
If god is truly all powerful he could create a universe without evil. I mean, he is not limited to universal laws. So he could give us free will without evil.
I'm not sure that I like the bus analogy at all.
I agree that is has some serious flaws. I was just addressing it as it was brought up earlier.
However, I'm not sure where you are getting the "one chance at life" or the "live life to the fullest" from that verse. It's talking about putting God in the back seat so to speak. Basically he's asking where your heart is.
I take it to mean this life is not important. Not that John is suggesting you should just kill yourself. But I do get a sense that he expects you to make sacrifices to be rewarded in the afterlife.
That is not to say that I think doing onto others as you would have them do unto you is a waste of your life. But I do think a lot of the other dogma could be a waste. Granted, John is not specifically spelling that out here. So I concede this is quite a stretch.
I'd have to look up the other points to really say much. I have a feeling that much of it comes into play with context -- within the book, to who he was addressing, or the location.
I also concede this was not provided by my source. Although, if he is not addressing me, should I really pay him that much heed?
With regard to the "last hour" -- a few points. I'm reminded of Indiana Jones and the Holy Grail -- "My soul's been prepared -- how's yours?” Does anyone really know when they are going to "snuff it"? When exactly is someone's "last hour"? I also don't think that anyone who read that really thought that it meant 60 minutes. How long is an hour or a day or 10,000 years to someone with whom time has no meaning? The general idea is basically -- always be ready.
I certainly did not take him to mean 60 minutes. I did take him to mean years. I am not familiar with Hebrew or Greek, but I know in English and hour is not generally used to symbolically represent a long time. I have heard it used to represent hours or days, maybe even months. Rarely longer. Also, Jesus said the end was coming within a generation or so. I would take John to be referring to the same time frame.
I get that he is saying you should make right with god now. I am saying his time frame for the end of times is questionable and it casts some doubt in my mind. I am not saying, “Oh look, John said one hour and it has been 2000 years so he is completely wrong about anything and everything!” What I am saying is here is another example of something that brings a question to my mind.
|
|
Just when I think I'm going to leave this thread alone I feel compelled to respond.
Please don't leave this thread alone. (At least not right now.) I for one, have learned a lot from your posts. You have a good knowledge of facts and faith and the difference between the two.
As for CourtFool, I'm (surprisingly) encouraged by his posts. There are a few of them that are a little antagonistic, however I genuinely feel like he is looking for common sense answers to difficult questions -- of which he has largely gotten the run-around in the past. At the very least, I feel like he is enjoying a dialogue that he hasn't had in the past.
I genuinely feel like he is looking for common sense answers to difficult questions -- of which he has largely gotten the run-around in the past. At the very least, I feel like he is enjoying a dialogue that he hasn't had in the past.
That's also one of the main reasons I keep hanging around here...
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I genuinely feel like he is looking for common sense answers to difficult questions -- of which he has largely gotten the run-around in the past. At the very least, I feel like he is enjoying a dialogue that he hasn't had in the past.That's also one of the main reasons I keep hanging around here...
I'm just here for the food.
Courtfool, why don't you just sum up your feelings by saying you think Christianity is a silly waste of time and leave off picking apart every verse of the Bible that you disagree with. :)
It was suggested I read the Bible. Whenever I have a disagreement over religion with a Christian, they use the Bible as support for their position. Should I just say, “Nu uh!”?
On a more serious note, I do not think all of Christianity is a silly waste of time. I am down with loving your neighbor. Especially the cute one that lives next door to me.
I do feel belief in a god or gods is silly (except for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Ramen!). There are people far more intelligent and wiser than I who believe. I have no explanation for this. I also accept I could be in error. Furthermore, I have no problem allowing others to believe what they want as long as they do not try to force those beliefs on me.
The idea that light needs darkness to be light is not one I agree with. Darkness may be used to contrast light but it is not necessary to have one in order to have the other.
Fair enough. I agree to disagree with you on this.
Biblical time is generally broken down into three ages - the patriarchal, the mosaical and the christian. The Christian age is refered to in both the Old and New Testament as the Latter Days, the Last Hour and the Last Days.
I was not aware of this. Do you have some references?
Also, the AntiChrist, as a single entity, is not necessarily a biblical idea.
I got that from John since he is labeling anyone not following Jesus as an antichrist.
It is not name-calling. It is dividing the world into two camps, those for Christ and those against Christ. In christian thought there is no middle ground.
I disagree. There are some negative connotations implied there. It could also be John is appealing to people’s desire to belong. Something advertisers and con men have been exploiting for ages.
And since I am posting, something that has been bugging me for a few days now. The word 'Almah' in Isaiah 7:14, means, most literally, a young woman of marriagable age.
Thank you, Wicht. I was also not aware of this. Mary as a knocked up young woman of marriageable age is much more believable for me. It also removes the issue of Jesus’ siblings for me.
Any references for this one? I would like to look into it further.
Ramen!
"Touched by His noodly appendage."
Of course, it's no surprise that a dog is into spaghetti and meatballs. We've all seen Lady and the Tramp.
It occurs to me that the mistranslation of Almah contradicts the statement that no doctrine hinges on the differences in translations.
The Nicean Creed as per the First Council of Constantinople
who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;
I am down with loving your neighbor. Especially the cute one that lives next door to me.
I would imagine your wife would have problems with that idea of yours. ;)
|
|
Man, you're really getting into a lot of this.
It was suggested I read the bible.
Don't take my comment as a complaint. Just a little surprised how much you're digging into it. Keep going as you feel compelled.
RE: Darkness/Light. It doesn't say that he didn't create darkness. (It doesn't say that he did either.) Sometimes people read more into things than they probably should. This may be a place where we disagree -- however, (I'm not sure where it is off the top of my head) but in theory, God created Lucifer as a beautiful angel of light who turned on God. We're kind of back to the free will thing again, but in theory, if there wasn't the ability to do evil, then Satan wouldn't have even been able to do what he did, which implies that at least the possibility for evil already existed. I don't think that Lucifer "created" evil which means that if it was "created" it must have been created or allowed by God. I don't feel that it means that God has darkness in him. I don't see it as much of a contradiction -- but I understand why you might. We just may agree to disagree here.
RE: This life is not that important. I don't see that he's saying it the way you are interpreting it. I see it more along the lines of "If money is all that you love, then that's what you'll receive." Key word being "love". He's not saying you can't have money or stuff -- just make sure that your heart's in the right place.
Also, Jesus said the end was coming within a generation or so. I would take John to be referring to the same time frame.
Not to my knowledge. (Do you have a reference for that?) Jesus said "I'll be back", but he didn't give any indication when. I think that a lot of people were really hoping that it would be a lot sooner than it is turning out to be. But then again, what is "soon" to God?
I would imagine your wife would have problems with that idea of yours. ;)
Point.
|
|
Jesus did not predict the end of the world within a generation, he predicted the end of Jerusalem. (matthew 24:2) His apostles conflated this with the second coming (24:3) and asked for signs. Jesus proceeds to give explicit signs for the destruction of Jerusalem (24:4-35) saying ,"32 Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. 33 So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near; at the doors! Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place." He then says, speaking of the end of the world, "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only." and "Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming." Concerning the need to thus always be prepared for the end of life and/or the world, he gives a number of parables in the next chapter and a half.
Concerning the virgin birth, I wanted to be clear that I do believe in it (If I believe in a God that can create the world with a word and raise His son from the dead, the idea of a virgin giving birth is a small thing.). My point was that virgin is not a mistranslation, it is a possible translation, though not the only possibility. That being said, I wonder if, speaking to Courtfool, you realize that the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity is a Catholic doctrine and not a part of the gospels. Matthew 1:24-25 says, "Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son." The word 'Know' implies a sexual relationship meaning that what Matthew says is that Mary and Joseph enjoyed a normal marital relationship after the birth of Jesus. Thus when the Bible mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters it means his brothers and sisters. Both Jude and James, the biblical authors, were siblings of Christ. Catholic dogma goes through strange hoops to deny this.
And as for the Hebrew, Almah, any analytical concordance of the Bible can give you the definition of the word. Your public library might even have such a thing.
Thus when the Bible mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters it means his brothers and sisters. Catholic dogma goes through strange hoops to deny this.
I'll admit that I fail to see what possible difference this makes. Does the literal or figurative sense of Jesus' siblings have any bearing whatsoever on Jesus' message, that people are so keen to confirm or deny it?
I don't feel that it means that God has darkness in him. I don't see it as much of a contradiction -- but I understand why you might. We just may agree to disagree here.
You are right, creating something does not necessarily mean you have it within you. However, if god created it, it had to come from somewhere. If god created everything, then somewhere has to be him. It is a difficult concept because creation for god is different than creation for man. If I create something, I use materials I have access to, which I may not have created. Or, if you want to say man is capable of creating life by producing children, the seed (I am referring to sperm and eggs here) for that life still comes from within humans. God is not restricted the same way. Therefore, whatever materials are at had for him to create with, or if it simply springs from him, then does it not follow that darkness/evil had to exists within him first?
He's not saying you can't have money or stuff -- just make sure that your heart's in the right place.
I can buy that.
Not to my knowledge. (Do you have a reference for that?)
Matthew 24:34, Luke 21:32, Mark 13:30
|
|
Biblical time is generally broken down into three ages - the patriarchal, the mosaical and the christian. The Christian age is refered to in both the Old and New Testament as the Latter Days, the Last Hour and the Last Days.I was not aware of this. Do you have some references?
The term last days is used in Acts 2:17, 2 Timothy 3:1, Hebrews 1:2, James 5:3, and 2 Peter 3:3. In Acts 2 and Hebrews 1 especially it is clear that the modern (i.e. Christian) age is what is meant. (Note that I am an amillinialist and some premillinialist will argue with this interpretation but I think Peter in Acts 2 makes it clear that He was at that time in the last days.)
The term Latter Times is used in 1 timothy 4:1 but is parallel to 2 Timothy 3:1 in meaning.
The term last hour is used in the New Testament only in John but the meaning is so similar to what is said by Paul to Timothy that it is generally accepted as being the same.
As for the naming of the ages, that is more or less a modern thing, but the idea is biblical and the terms refer to the covenants by which God dealt with man. Before the Law of Moses was given the testimony of scriptures is that God dealt most often through the head of each family - hence the term Patriarchal age. It can also be used to refer to the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who are called the Patriarchs. The Law of Moses changed this and God dealt with man through the terms of the covenant he made with Moses. The Law of Christ replaced the Law of Moses and hence the new age. The idea of covenants, and the new replacing the old is found in Matthew 26:28, 2 Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 7:22, 8:6-13, and 12:24.
|
|
Thus when the Bible mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters it means his brothers and sisters. Catholic dogma goes through strange hoops to deny this.I'll admit that I fail to see what possible difference this makes. Does the literal or figurative sense of Jesus' siblings have any bearing whatsoever on Jesus' message, that people are so keen to confirm or deny it?
Catholics think it important to teach that Mary was perpetually a virgin. I don't understand it myself. You'll have to take it up with them. I only mentioned it because Courtfool did, sortof.
You'll have to take it up with them.
Heh. I gave up on that when I was maybe 10 years old. The better-educated ones would refer me to lengthy medieval treatises that ran into the hundreds of pages; the lesser-educated ones would tell me to go to confession.
And since I am posting, something that has been bugging me for a few days now. The word 'Almah' in Isaiah 7:14, means, most literally, a young woman of marriagable age. But translating it virgin is most certainly not in and of itself incorrect. Strong's concordance gives the meanings as, "lass (as veiled or private):--damsel, maid, virgin." and the nasc defines it as "young woman, a virgin." There is a strong cultural assumption that a chaste young woman of marriageable age and a virgin are synonomous terms. The translators of the septuagint, hebrews and hebrew scholars all, some two-hundred and fifty years before Christ thought that virgin was the best and simplest...
If the writers of the gospels were competent in Hebrew, they needed a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible about as much as they needed a few extra holes in the head. Having Hebrew language competence, they could have translated the relevant Hebrew passages themselves for Greek-speaking audiences, and considering they think that their Gospels take priority over the Hebrew Bible, I see no reason they would have done anything else. For that matter, why not prepare their own translation of the whole thing? The evidence is not conclusive that they had the kind of linguistic chops you want them to have.
As for Alamah, why is the translation as virgin so sure when the same word is almost everywhere else translated as simply young woman? This quite frankly demonstrates that the translation is an anomalous reading, and indeed we have text families that do render the passage as young woman instead of virgin. The existence of a more specific word in Hebrew that means virgin, bethulah, and the failure to use it in the Hebrew passage implies quite strongly, to my eyes, that no mention of virginity was intended. Richard Carrier discusses the issue in some detail here. Even the Greek term used may denote "young woman".
So we have
1) an unusual translation of alamah, which is rarely rendered as virgin
2) the rejection of the more precise term for virgin, bethulah, by the original writers
3) the fact that even the Greek uses a somewhat ambiguous term
And you're still sure that virgin is the correct reading? To me, that's faith, not reason. You're entitled to it, but to me this is essentially a fideist position. I am an evidentialist, so I find it entirely unconvincing.
But that's not exactly my point. You said something to the effect that no Christian doctrine rested on a questionable translation. The fact that we're having this discussion is prima facie evidence to the contrary.
To use Matthews quotation of the Septuagint translation of Isaiah as a reason to not trust the Bible makes no manner of sense to me at all. I understand people who don't want to believe in the virgin birth. But I don't see how Matthew's quote has any bearing on it one way or the other. Ok. Now that I've got that off my chest I feel better. :)
Maybe you're speaking to somebody else (I am kind of randomly butting in here.) but I don't reject the Bible because of the unreliable translation. (Though that says something about the wisdom of basing important judgments upon it.) I reject the Bible because it's full of things that look identical to all the other texts that we both think are at best poor maps (and often not maps at all) to actual reality. If you want to get specific about the virgin birth doctrine, my position on that is the same as it would be if somebody told me that the sun rose in the west and set in the east. Either they're using rather novel definitions of the terms, they're mistaken, or they're lying, at least insofar as they're attempting to describe a world that we all inhabit.
Like with the siblings, though, I can see no reason in the world why a virgin birth is important. I mean, whether God put Jesus directly in the womb by magic, or whether the Big Daddy used Joe as a proxy, Jesus Christ was still here, right?
This is the root of what I can never fathom about modern Christianity. You've got a message that practically sells itself... but instead of focusing on that, people insist on literal interpretation of portions of scripture that discribe wildly improbable miracles, or "science" that's at odds with observation of the natural world.
|
...then does it not follow that darkness/evil had to exists within him first?
Some early Gnostic sects describe God as evil. I read somewhere that one of the more common Gnostic beliefs was that there were two Gods; one that created the world and existed in the Garden of Eden, and a second God who ruled over the Earth (and who, for lack of a better word, could be described as evil).
|
|
This is the root of what I can never fathom about modern Christianity. You've got a message that practically sells itself... but instead of focusing on that, people insist on literal interpretation of portions of scripture that discribe wildly improbable miracles, or "science" that's at odds with observation of the natural world.
The shift in focus comes when the religion becomes mainstream. Suddenly there is canon to establish and power to be wielded. The same thing has happened with Star Wars and Star Trek...
|
|
This is the root of what I can never fathom about modern Christianity. You've got a message that practically sells itself... but instead of focusing on that, people insist on literal interpretation of portions of scripture that discribe wildly improbable miracles, or "science" that's at odds with observation of the natural world.
I think it depends on what you think the message of Christianity is. If you think the message is simply be excellent to one another, then you are right. But if thats all you think it is, you are missing the larger point. The resurrection of the dead is the central message of the gospel. There is a hereafter and you need to prepare for it properly. One of the things needed to prepare is faith.
If you take away the message of the resurrection, the whole doctrine of Christianity becomes pointless. As Paul observed to the Corinthians, if there was no resurrection from the dead, the proper response would be to emulate the epicureans (eat and drink), knowing that death is coming.
Like with the siblings, though, I can see no reason in the world why a virgin birth is important. I mean, whether God put Jesus directly in the womb by magic, or whether the Big Daddy used Joe as a proxy, Jesus Christ was still here, right?
Maybe, maybe not. It's very difficult to establish the historicity of marginal figures of little influence and low profile in the historical record, especially so far back. It's not like he has a birth certificate we can look up. Would a traveling apocalyptic preacher with a common name be all that unusual in Roman Judea? Not really. That's a bit like saying a farmer or a soldier would be unusual. We certainly know that farmers and soldiers existed, but the ability to pinpoint intimate details of such a person's life is dependent on available sources and the accuracy and integrity of the same.
But if the message is good (I don't necessarily agree that it is, but that's a separate topic.), does it matter if Jesus was there?
This is the root of what I can never fathom about modern Christianity. You've got a message that practically sells itself... but instead of focusing on that, people insist on literal interpretation of portions of scripture that discribe wildly improbable miracles, or "science" that's at odds with observation of the natural world.
I think for a lot of people, those things are the message. The notion that the omnipotent creator of the universe sent this dude to lay down rules and give advice on how to live one's life in order to win eternal bliss and avoid eternal torment is what gives the message its authority to them. This sets it apart from all other messages and makes it singularly important, since it's the gatekeeper on the afterlife, and in authority, because who can beat the omnipotent creator of the universe's own word?
I know that least from my standpoint as a guy who thinks the Bible nothing more than the work of human beings with all their faults, the message isn't all that spectacular. Love thy neighbor is in the same tome as Leviticus, so talk about mixed messages. The various Humanist Manifestos all come off better, and why wouldn't they? They were written by people living in a culture much more like our own, with a far more comprehensive understanding of the universe than anybody way back in Antiquity could dream of.
If you take away the message of the resurrection, the whole doctrine of Christianity becomes pointless. As Paul observed to the Corinthians, if there was no resurrection from the dead, the proper response would be to emulate the epicureans (eat and drink), knowing that death is coming.
I rather think that because death is the ultimate end and nothing of us shall endure beyond it, our consciousness forever extinguished, it's all the more important to do well, do right, and enjoy what you can in this life. That doesn't sound like such an awful deal. It's up to us to give our lives what meanings we choose, for better or worse.
The resurrection of the dead is the central message of the gospel. There is a hereafter and you need to prepare for it properly. One of the things needed to prepare is faith.
There's the rub. The evidence I've experienced points against there being a personal afterlife. So, "be excellent to each other" seems to me a message of supreme importance. And while I would like to leave a respectable subjective afterlife, I have no spirit independent of this world, so why should I worry about it?
Some early Gnostic sects describe God as evil. I read somewhere that one of the more common Gnostic beliefs was that there were two Gods; one that created the world and existed in the Garden of Eden, and a second God who ruled over the Earth (and who, for lack of a better word, could be described as evil).
That would make more sense to me.
The resurrection of the dead is the central message of the gospel.
Yet, completely left out in some translations of Mark. You say it was there originally and then lost. I say the early church was evolving their message, reading into past works, dropping some scripture (apocrypha) and adding some.
Some early Gnostic sects describe God as evil. I read somewhere that one of the more common Gnostic beliefs was that there were two Gods; one that created the world and existed in the Garden of Eden, and a second God who ruled over the Earth (and who, for lack of a better word, could be described as evil).That would make more sense to me.
The lesser creator god was known as the Demiurge. It's quite an interesting concept.
Personal believes aside, I must admit I am intrigued to know what evidence you have experienced that convinces you of the absence of a soul. Death? Meditation? Bad Drug Trip?
What evidence do you have of the presence of a soul? In the absence of evidence, why should we think one exists?
|
|
Personal believes aside, I must admit I am intrigued to know what evidence you have experienced that convinces you of the absence of a soul. Death? Meditation? Bad Drug Trip?What evidence do you have of the presence of a soul? In the absence of evidence, why should we think one exists?
Its the same way you taste love in mom's cookin'. Companies go out of their way to try and produce this same sensation when you eat their food products, such as Jell-O or Oreos.
There is something to believing in a soul in my opinion, but that begs a definition. When someone says soul, what do they really mean? Is it as simple as your personality, is it that which makes us different than animals, is it a disconnected being from your physical self, is it just a misconception (such as bodily humours controlling your well being)?
Its the same way you taste love in mom's cookin'. Companies go out of their way to try and produce this same sensation when you eat their food products, such as Jell-O or Oreos.
I don't taste love in mom's cooking. I taste it, associate it with her, and thus experience the emotion. To say that I taste love in the food is just a metaphor, and one that gives the wrong impression.
There is something to believing in a soul in my opinion
Ok. What? :)
While researching the demiurge on Wikipedia, I found this. Just thought I would share for anyone else who might find it interesting.
The resurrection of the dead is the central message of the gospel. There is a hereafter and you need to prepare for it properly.
When I was a kid, the Catholics spent a lot of effort making sure that I understood that what you're preparing for is the eternal afterlife of your soul -- which is of the spirit, not the flesh -- not that you'll be physically resurrected in your earthly body. In which case, to my limited understanding, it would seem that physical resurrection -- of Jesus or of anyone else -- has no real bearing on anything, unless the Protestant view is that there's no soul separate from the body.
Much like whether Jesus magically appeared in the womb, or whether God used Joseph to put him there... well, whether Jesus physically rose from the dead and was bodily lifted into the sky, or whether his essence just appeared in Heaven, should have nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of salvation of the soul through the grace of God -- at least, not that I can see. The only "need" for a virgin birth and a physical resurrection that I can surmise is based on the desperate need of people to espouse EVERYTHING that "their team" supports.
Maybe it's in the same vein of how almost everyone who wants lower taxes now also feels the need to be pro-life, even if the two issues have nothing in the world to do with one another... except for being chosen issues of a particular political party. Virgin births and bodily resurrection strike me, personally, as stage trappings rather than root substance, that are nonetheless deemed "critical" because of the tendency of people to go "all or nothing." The same motivation leads many Christians to accept the literal inerrancy of every word in the Bible, and all of the contradictions with reality that that entails, to the point where I've heard people seriously and angrily deny that whales are mammals (despite the warm blood and lactation) because the Bible called it a "fish."
P.S. Moff, I give you HUGE props for being able to accept some parts as allegory and others as truth: in short, for showing that a person can be strong in faith without having to accept every jot and tittle they're handed as literal fact.
|
|
The resurrection of the dead is the central message of the gospel.Yet, completely left out in some translations of Mark. You say it was there originally and then lost. I say the early church was evolving their message, reading into past works, dropping some scripture (apocrypha) and adding some.
The resurrection of the dead is the central message of the gospel.Yet, completely left out in some translations of Mark. You say it was there originally and then lost. I say the early church was evolving their message, reading into past works, dropping some scripture (apocrypha) and adding some.
The resurrection is discussed in Mark 12. The part of Mark in question in the discussion of the text is Mark 16.
Moreover Mark was most likely written about 65 AD.
First Corinthians, of which the entire 15th chapter is devoted to the resurrection, was written in the middle 50's, some 10 years before Mark.
The date for the gospel of Luke can, from the internal evidence in both Luke and Acts, be placed as having been written in the Late 50's early 60s, about five years before Mark.
Peter talks about the resurrection in His epistle and as he died around the year 64, his writings cannot be placed later than that.
These books alone then were all written twenty-five to thirty five years after the beginning of the church. The idea that they represent some evolved form of Christianity is not supported by the evidence. In fact, the gnostic writings were mostly written later, normally fifty or a hundred years later than these books and if anything, it is gnostic thought which represents a change in the doctrine.
|
|
The resurrection of the dead is the central message of the gospel. There is a hereafter and you need to prepare for it properly.When I was a kid, the Catholics spent a lot of effort making sure that I understood that what you're preparing for is the eternal afterlife of your soul -- which is of the spirit, not the flesh -- not that you'll be physically resurrected in your earthly body. In which case, to my limited understanding, it would seem that physical resurrection -- of Jesus or of anyone else -- has no real bearing on anything, unless the Protestant view is that there's no soul separate from the body.
I am a strange fish, neither catholic nor protestant. :)
The veiw of Paul in 1 Corinthians is that there is a body following the resurrection but that our understanding of it is very limited. Rather than just quote the whole of 1 Corinthians 15, I will refer you to that chapter for my understanding of the resurrection and the body thereafter.
|
|
The same motivation leads many Christians to accept the literal inerrancy of every word in the Bible, and all of the contradictions with reality that that entails, to the point where I've heard people seriously and angrily deny that whales are mammals (despite the warm blood and lactation) because the Bible called it a "fish."
There is a problem here, but it is one of communication (trying to impose modern meanings on ancient words). The whale is a fish in the terminology of the ancient hebrews and greeks. But then so are shrimp, jellyfish, etc. Basically the word fish in the ancient languages tend to mean a water living organism. It has nothing to do with scales, lactation, etc. In modern parlance the whale is not in the same family as the carp. But older languages did not make the distinction. In point of fact the word whale does not occur in the whole of the bible and the point is a bit moot. I suspect that the story of Jonah is in play here and while the word used there could refer to a whale, it does not have to. Its a silly argument one way or the other.
The only "need" for a virgin birth and a physical resurrection that I can surmise is based on the desperate need of people to espouse EVERYTHING that "their team" supports.
Actually, it is used as a proof that Jesus is the messiah. Early Christians translate Isaiah to mean the messiah will be born of a virgin.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
It also includes some that I find frankly abhorrent, and which I think most honest and decent modern people wouldn't even try to make excuses for. The story of Abraham and Isaac is honestly one of the most sickening displays of raw divine evil I've ever read. Abraham is to kill his son as a test of his loyalty to his god. That's already outright abominable in my book. No decent god would even think of asking for such a thing. And Abraham is a righteous man because he was ready to do it? But then it's all ok because God was just kidding? What kind of person arranges character tests like that? It's sick, and if he's really all-knowing then he already knew the outcome. The same messed up, to me anyway, value structure is at play in the doctrine of substitutionary atonement.
I'm sorry I've fallen off the conversation. All work and no Paizo for me lately.
I wonder how you miss the point that God uses the test of Abraham to illustrate the immensity of His willingness to give His own Son. It's not 'okay because God was just kidding.' It is a grave and serious ilustration. It's a type of things to come. And two other thoughts: you might not believe a creator god exists, but that doesn't mean he doesn't. I am not justifying my faith by saying you can't prove there's a god, I'm pointing out that disbelief doesn't eliminate God if He does exist. And if He does, He is sovereign, and our attempts to understand Him should start with that, and not at how we think He's not fair to His creation.
Also, there's always the matter of context. You can't look at a part of the Bible and ascribe some monstrous character to God. You should also read the Psalms or the New Testament and discover that mercy and love for His creation are inseparable from His character. So what you think of as unthinkable, I think of as only a timy part of the story.
I don't think the Bible's the word of God, but then I don't think there are any gods to have words with so the point is rather moot. It's not the word of aliens from Zeta Reticuli either. But even if it was, it's not the word of any God I could worship. I don't see how it's the kind that any person could worship.
And yet millions of non-child-sacrificing, non-prostitute-stoning, non-illiterate do. Do we share the horrible characteristics that your skeptical view of the bible ascribes to God?
When I got saved, it was precisely because I stopped slandering what little I knew of God and started actually reading the Bible to see if there was a message there. I also started asking questions rather than telling folks what they believed without spending as much time looking into it as they had. I don't necessarily claim that's your approach, I am saying that's exactly how I thought before I became a Christian.
As for the above comment about the Ilead. Really. All the geographic and historical accuracy of the Bible, and you're going to compare it to Greek mythology? Cyclops? A giant wooden horse built on the beach without the Trojans knowing? There's a huge distance between the miraculous claims of the Bible (where God enables miracles during an otherwise verifiable historical account, and always to demonstrate His power over the world) and mythology (where fantastic deities and creatures are used to color a story that does not bear prophetic verification and did not survive as a religion these last 2500 years.)
Finally, there was a comment that any book written by me could be revised later and have a pretty strong prophetic record. But we know that isn't the case with the Bible. We know - even if you aren't a believer - that accounts of the crucifixion in the Psalms and Isaiah predate the use of such methods by the Romans by hundreds of years. We know critics of the Bible ruled that a large number of locations were fictional and nonhistoric (suggesting error), only to be found later. And we know Daniel was written long before the empires it predicted would replace Babylon. And more.
My whole point is, it bears studying and looking into rather than dismissing based on an incomplete understanding.
|
|
Personal believes aside, I must admit I am intrigued to know what evidence you have experienced that convinces you of the absence of a soul. Death? Meditation? Bad Drug Trip?What evidence do you have of the presence of a soul? In the absence of evidence, why should we think one exists?
Heh. If the soul is an invisible, immaterial object then looking for physical evidence of it would be pretty silly. I am quite comfortable in admitting I accept the existence of the soul almost entirely on my faith in the truthfulness of God.
My question though was based on the statement that he had personal experience with evidence that denied the existence of a soul. I am curious as to the nature of this experience. You must admit it is a novel claim and worth exploring.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
The only "need" for a virgin birth and a physical resurrection that I can surmise is based on the desperate need of people to espouse EVERYTHING that "their team" supports.Actually, it is used as a proof that Jesus is the messiah. Early Christians translate Isaiah to mean the messiah will be born of a virgin.
Yeah. The point of prophecy is to indicate who the real Messiah will be, and verify the claims of the Bible prior to Christ's coming. After all, many people have claimed to be the Jewish Messiah. There's even an absurd modern Messiah espoused on this cheap tv show on Sunday afternoons. But nothing about that Messiah is based on the Bible. And His name is impossible to pronounce. : }
There is no need for a virgin birth except to indicate the uniqueness of Christ. There absolutely must be a resurrection because it is both foretold, and because it is the completion of the work Christ did. Without the resurrection there is no victory over death and therefore no salvation.
|
|
The only "need" for a virgin birth and a physical resurrection that I can surmise is based on the desperate need of people to espouse EVERYTHING that "their team" supports.Actually, it is used as a proof that Jesus is the messiah. Early Christians translate Isaiah to mean the messiah will be born of a virgin.
Actually the translation that is the LXX was made about 250 years before Christ was born. The translation had nothing to do with early christians, though it was obviously not unknown to them. While I do believe that Judean Jews could read and write Hebrew (c.f. Acts 22:2 where Paul uses the Hebrew tongue to establish some credentials and address a crowd) it is nevertheless true that most Jews, in those days, did not live in Judea or Galilee and that in the first century the LXX was likely the most common version of the Old Testament in existence since everyone spoke greek, from Egypt to Rome.
The resurrection is discussed in Mark 12. The part of Mark in question in the discussion of the text is Mark 16.
Are you sure you did not mean Mark 13? Jesus says he will return, but does not specifically say he will rise from the dead. This is also where Jesus says ‘this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” You said that Jesus was speaking in biblical generations but that seems a bit of a stretch in this context.
“Some unspecified amount of time will not pass away until all these things take place.”
The virgin birth is a matter of theology. The Bible reckons sin as an inherited defect, passed from generation to generation. However, it is always reckoned through the father's parentage (although Eve sinned first, the Bible always speaks of Adam's sin). By having God as his father, Jesus was born without the human inheritance of sin--thus the importance of a virgin birth.
The physical resurrection is proof that Jesus settled the accounts for all human sin when he suffered on the cross. If he died with his work of redemption incomplete, God the Father would not have capped off Jesus' life with resurrection, which serves as a heavenly seal of approval.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Ah, where to start? How about the beginning. Oh, and I am using the King James version. If there is another version I should be using, please let me know.
This is hardly an indication that the Bible isn't accurate. It makes no attempt to explain how weird creation must have been. No author of the Bible was there but God. A physics book might have significantly more pages than the Bible and still doesn't have an explanation for how the universe was created. Or whether there was a big bang. Or where matter and energy came before any big bang. Or what that energy might have looked like.
Sure you can crack open a text book and have someone try to tell you what was going on at 10 to the negative 136 seconds during the big bang...but do you want to contend that believeing in that statement is not an issue of faith?
The Bible exists to answer the relevent questions of God's involvement with humanity, in an attemtp to reconcile a creation gone astray. No one should be claiming it answers everything we want to know about the nature of God or the beginings of creation, or how he separated Heaven from the heavans. And it is not inaccurate in describing creation simply becasue it does not attempt to explain those things.
Now a quanitifiable, historical inaccuracy, I would be interested in someone pointing that out.
I wonder how you miss the point that God uses the test of Abraham to illustrate the immensity of His willingness to give His own Son.
I find it more likely a lesson not to question.
Why does god need to give his son?
|
|
The resurrection is discussed in Mark 12. The part of Mark in question in the discussion of the text is Mark 16.Are you sure you did not mean Mark 13? Jesus says he will return, but does not specifically say he will rise from the dead. This is also where Jesus says ‘this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” You said that Jesus was speaking in biblical generations but that seems a bit of a stretch in this context.
“Some unspecified amount of time will not pass away until all these things take place.”
1) Mark 12:18-27; The resurrection of Christ is Mark 16:1-8. The disputed text begins in verse 9.
2) I think you misunderstood what I wrote about the statement in Mark 13. Jesus promised Jerusalem would be destroyed in a generation, not that the world would end within 1 generation. This has nothing to do with the term 'last days' as used in Acts 2, etc.