It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What Would Jesus Do?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Right or wrong, literal or otherwise, the bible is still viewed by at least a third of the planet's population as recorded history.


Says who?


Bible sales being #1 worldwide for hundreds of years supports the assumption that people buy into the bible (for various reasons). I'm more than willing to concede that people can read the same passage and get different meanings out of it. For instance ........


Back to the topic at hand, why has no-one presented church history to prove that this passage was not meant literally?



Originally posted by spamandham
Matthew 19:12 (KJV)
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.


" .... and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to recieve it, let him receive it."


Where one mind might see this means to cut one's genetalia off to get to the kingdom .....

Another mind may see that this refers to people who (from their perspective) believe they have to become a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. However, where do you make the leap in determining that this means this is what the kingdom of heaven wants? It does not say it is what the kingdom wants, it merely states that men have done this because they did it for the kingdom of heaven's sake.

As for the "He that is able to recieve it, let him receive it." Sounds to me like he is offering to add something if people are able to receive it. And, recieving something is not always the same as having something taken away.

This scripture, like so many, simply offers different ways to regurgitate what it is the observer sees, allowing others to see what is recognized first by said observer.

You may do something for a friend for that friends sake, but it does not necessarily mean that what you did for that friend was what that friend wanted. This exerpt from Mathew does not tell me to go make myself a eunuch. As for a counter-point using scripture: "Go forth and multiply, fill the Earth with the seed of men".




posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Bible sales being #1 worldwide for hundreds of years supports the assumption that people buy into the bible (for various reasons).


I agree that there is vast interest in the Bible, but does that really imply most people interpret it as literal history?


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
" .... and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to recieve it, let him receive it."


Where one mind might see this means to cut one's genetalia off to get to the kingdom .....

Another mind may see that this refers to people who (from their perspective) believe they have to become a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. However, where do you make the leap in determining that this means this is what the kingdom of heaven wants?


From the part about "He who is able to receive it, let him receive it." While it's true this is not a command to do it, it is certainly encouragement.

I don't see how there can be any question at all as to the meaning of this verse. Jesus is clearly talking about physical castration. He established that when he began the paragraph referring to those born eunuchs or who were made eunuchs by men. It's also clear he is encouraging castration with the last sentence about receiving it if you are able. The only real question is whether or not he was using hyperbole, or did he really want men to castrate themselves.

This is where looking at early church history might provide an answer. The first New Testament theologean, Origen, did indeed castrate himself over this passage.


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
As for a counter-point using scripture: "Go forth and multiply, fill the Earth with the seed of men".


That's Old Testament. Jesus "fulfilled" that one away.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

I agree that there is vast interest in the Bible, but does that really imply most people interpret it as literal history?


No, however it may be extrememly important to keep such scriptures nonetheless. Perhaps nothing is by chance, and it should remain for future generations.



From the part about "He who is able to receive it, let him receive it." While it's true this is not a command to do it, it is certainly encouragement.


And I know this is just plain wrong to say, but it was the first thought that popped into my head. What if the message in this passage was addressing people who they themselves thought they were so evil, that through sarcasm (which does not always translate in script) these people were being told to vanquish their future family tree because they themselves even felt they were nothing but genetic u-turns in the human evolutionary scale of mankind? Perhaps people who damage their own bodies in this way and justify it by saying they are not worthy, they were being agreed with and told pretty much "Well, whatever you think is best, because you know yourself better than I do".

We must concede we can not ascertain the exact context in which this was being said, because we are not 100% sure of the perspectives and states of minds of those addressing, and those being addressed. But, yes, I do see how one could take this to mean "Cut it off" in the literal sense.

Sometimes I wonder if the first castration job wasn't a botched up circumcision (spelling?).

I don't see how there can be any question at all as to the meaning of this verse. Jesus is clearly talking about physical castration. He established that when he began the paragraph referring to those born eunuchs or who were made eunuchs by men. It's also clear he is encouraging castration with the last sentence about receiving it if you are able. The only real question is whether or not he was using hyperbole, or did he really want men to castrate themselves.

This is where looking at early church history might provide an answer. The first New Testament theologean, Origen, did indeed castrate himself over this passage.


Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
As for a counter-point using scripture: "Go forth and multiply, fill the Earth with the seed of men".


That's Old Testament. Jesus "fulfilled" that one away.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
And I know this is just plain wrong to say, but it was the first thought that popped into my head. What if the message in this passage was addressing people who they themselves thought they were so evil, that through sarcasm (which does not always translate in script) these people were being told to vanquish their future family tree...


The context of the conversation is Jesus talking to his disciples about divorce. He tells them not to divorce except for infidelity, to which they object that it's better not to marry at all in that case, and Jesus one-ups them with the castration business.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
Matthew 19:12 (KJV)
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.



It would be my belief that this verse is saying there are 3 different eunochs in the world. Some because of a birth defect have been born that way. Some have been made eunuchs by surgery by others. The third group are those who have decided to become "eunuchs" by choice. Now I suppose this means that they could have an operation to literally have this done but I don't think that is what this is talking about. I believe it is a reference to deciding to dedicate your life to the cause of Jesus Christ and the Gospel. If you get married then you must devote alot of your time to your spouse and family along with God. Someone who doesn't get married forgoes the time and money it takes to raise and create and nuture a family and instead has decided to put all this energy into God's work. This also allows this person to be able to minister in ways a married person can't. A married person must watch out how he relates to others so that jelousy and improper situations don't arise. There are certain situations that he or she cannot get themselves into. A single person has a little more that they can do but must still be careful. I think this verse could be speaking of a manor woman.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
The third group are those who have decided to become "eunuchs" by choice. Now I suppose this means that they could have an operation to literally have this done but I don't think that is what this is talking about.


Read a few posts up and answer this question.

If it does not literally mean this, then why did Origen castrate himself?



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 02:03 AM
link   
He did?



I didn't know that. Wow.



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by dbrandt
The third group are those who have decided to become "eunuchs" by choice. Now I suppose this means that they could have an operation to literally have this done but I don't think that is what this is talking about.


Read a few posts up and answer this question.

If it does not literally mean this, then why did Origen castrate himself?



I don't know I wasn't there. Maybe He had a hard time with lusting after the opposite sex and he did this because he thought it would help.



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Could it be possible that a physical organ determines the essential content of thoughts? Did he also remove his adrenal gland and other such glandular components?



Sounds silly to me.



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
I don't know I wasn't there. Maybe He had a hard time with lusting after the opposite sex and he did this because he thought it would help.


Other church fathers (Eusebius) recorded the reason he did it. It was in response to Matthew 19:12.

You can check it out in the Catholic encyclopedia if you like:

Castration (look down the page for Origen)



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Jesus, if he was here right now, would, if he could, turn some water into beer and stop arguing about religion.



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
Other church fathers (Eusebius) recorded the reason he did it.


Church History of Eusebuis, Book VI, Chapter VIII
At this time while Origen was conducting catechetical instruction at Alexandria, a deed was done by him which evidenced an immature and youthful mind, but at the same time gave the highest proof of faith and continence. For he took the words, "There 2 are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake," in too literal and extreme a sense. And in order to fulfill the Saviour's word, and at the same time to take away from the unbelievers all opportunity for scandal,--for, although young, he met for the study of divine things with women as well as men,--he carried out in action the word of the Saviour.


Later in his life, Origin's interpretation of the verse was no longer as literal as it was in his youth. In his commentary on Matthew, his interpretation refers to celibacy and chasity.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
Later in his life, Origin's interpretation of the verse was no longer as literal as it was in his youth. In his commentary on Matthew, his interpretation refers to celibacy and chasity.


For those who wish to take the Bible literally, they are in the same position Origen was in his misguided youth.

It's quite clear what Matthew records regarding castration. It's only if you take a more liberal perspective of scripture that you can redefine that passage to mean celibacy and chastity. But if you are willing to invent new meaning for that passage, what about the rest of the Bible?



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
It's quite clear what Matthew records regarding castration. It's only if you take a more liberal perspective of scripture that you can redefine that passage to mean celibacy and chastity. But if you are willing to invent new meaning for that passage, what about the rest of the Bible?



If what Matthew records is open to interpretation - how then is it clear?



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   

1 Corinthians 3:1-3
Brothers, I couldn't talk to you as spiritual people but as worldly people, as mere infants in Christ.
I gave you milk to drink, not solid food, because you weren't ready for it. Why, you're still not ready for it!
That's because you are still worldly. As long as there is jealousy and quarreling among you, you are worldly and living by human standards, aren't you?


I went through many phases, in regard to how I approached and understood scripture. When I was a teenager, by the time I graduated high school, I pretty much had read the whole thing and had the surface literal story committed to memory. Something inside told me there certainly had to be more to it...but even in my immaturity at 17 years old, I somehow knew there was no way to finding anything deeper at that time. So I put it down and learned by observation and experience, taught by life, itself, for the next nearly 20 years.

These recent years, in the time since I one day just 'picked it up' again, from some mysterious urge, I have gone through literal, totally fiction, symbolic, and various nuances and combinations, all the way to where I am now, which is not really anything I could put a word to. But if not for all those other periods of time, I certainly couldn't understand the depth there is, so obviously, before my eyes and mind these days, when I read it.

One of the most beneficial stages happened when literal became nonsensical and something I could not reconcile according to what I then saw and knew of reality. Yet I knew that I hadn't 'gotten to the bottom of it.' So, because of the influence of an acquaintance who was not at all of the same mind as me, I threw out (in my mind) all possibility of any 'factual' truth therein and decided to learn from the lessons apart from assigning them value according to whether I thought the stories were possible or had actually happened. That was when a certain door opened up and things began to make sense in a way that only 'truth' can.

By 'truth' I don't mean facts--'facts' are not truth, they are objective data. Truth is something of value, abstractly essential, impossible to define but ultimately consistent when applied in action and thoughts by a living breathing person. Regardless of whether Jesus was a real person or not, 'love your neighbor as yourself,' is excellent advice since it promotes positive energy and good karma. Even 'the kingdom of God is within you' is something I can't find fault with--it applies toward the sense of personal responsibility, both for one's decisions and resolving long-held emotional issues.

I went from 'milk' to 'meat,' over time and it truly resulted in growth--spiritually, not physically. As long as a person remains focused on the bible from a physical perspective, it cannot be applied for growth. Any phase one gets 'stuck' in is the opposite of growth, it is stagnation.

Origen might have done something physical to himself, that was irrevocable and irreversible, but he allowed his spiritual self to grow despite his over-reaction to the 'milk'--he didn't stay stuck in the physical mode--which was probably a blessing, for him, beyond our understanding, in that case.


What we can learn from his 'mistake' might be to refrain from making decisions and judging things, in any way, in the course of learning (anything).
Knowing that we never are as smart or as learned as we may think or as others might persuade us that we are, in the present moment--and that no matter how much we understand or know right now, there is double that much more then opened up for learning ahead of us, because there should always be at least two questions raised in our minds for any one discovered 'answer.' If not, then we're getting stuck.

Questions keep the wheel of the mind turning, and as long as it's turning it's moving forward.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join