Evidence of religious foundations

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 

A billion people could each come to different conclusions.
I'm not getting my ideas from nut cases.
I am very selective on the books I buy, and use people who are highly placed professors at prestigious universities.

What kind of teaching is this when it can be rendered useless and meaningless through myriad interpretations?
That already happened, in the Dark Ages.
What has been going on over the last two hundred years is a scientific examination of scripture to get at what was originally intended by the biblical writers.
You seem to be of the opinion that we should all go back to ignorance in order to be more easily attacked by agnostics.
Sorry to make it inconvenient but it is not just me but academia that will forge on regardless of your opinion.
edit on 29-4-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 

Let's take what is probably the only clear statement in the bible . . .
But we are not talking about something that is clear.
The standard interpretation may be, due to being made that way on purpose to tell people who were uneducated and most likely illiterate.
The verse I was talking about is one of those enigmatic verses that people have been puzzling over forever. Modern scientific inquiry can produce an explanation once Medieval dogma is ignored.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 





I'm not getting my ideas from nut cases. I am very selective on the books I buy, and use people who are highly placed professors at prestigious universities.


YOU aren't getting YOUR ideas from nut cases. YOU are selective. This makes your beliefs one out of a billion beliefs. When you can get a billion beliefs to be the same, then you're doing something. Until then, all religious texts are totally worthless.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 





What has been going on over the last two hundred years is a scientific examination of scripture to get at what was originally intended by the biblical writers.


Scientific? What evidence is there for such an examination? All we have is ancient words. We know what was intended by the biblical writers - to write a good historical fiction. Funny thing is, if the bible had always been considered a work of fiction you would scream bloody hell at how poorly written it was, and at all the obvious flaws leaping out at you from every page.
edit on 4/29/2013 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 

YOU aren't getting YOUR ideas from nut cases. YOU are selective. This makes your beliefs one out of a billion beliefs.
It is going with the future, Christian academia, vs. what is dying, preachers following the company line, with outdated doctrines that go back to monks in cells reading the Bible in Latin.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 

. . . you would scream bloody hell at how poorly written it was . . .

The generally accepted practice is the one that takes the pragmatic approach of starting with what we have today as the canonical Bible.
It is a little too late now to rewrite the Bible.
We take now what history has given us.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 




I have done some extensive research into the subject and the conclusion I have come to is that when the New Testament talks about a "dwelling" in this way, it means a religious system.


What on EARTH would EVER compel you to equate 'dwelling' with a religious system???? Where in ANY gospel, scripture, verse, or quote are these two meanings bound together???

Did Jesus EVER call Judaism a dwelling? Did Jesus EVER call the sanhedrin a dwelling? Did Jesus EVER call any of the numerous religions of the time a dwelling? Did Jesus EVER say that Peter would be the rock upon which he'd build his dwelling?

I'm not even saying it's right or wrong. I'm just saying there is absolutely no reason to put these two meanings together. It's like me saying I believe that when Jesus broke bread with the apostles, that bread was actually ancient PIZZA! There is nothing in the bible that connects bread with pizza, and there is nothing in the bible that connects 'dwelling' with a religious system.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 





The generally accepted practice


Pity we can't say this about the interpretation of the bible.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 





John 14:2 In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?

That's the English Standard Version, which seems to phrase it a little differently than the old King James version. I have done some extensive research into the subject and the conclusion I have come to is that when the New Testament talks about a "dwelling" in this way, it means a religious system.


If that were a true interpretation of that passage, then one could infer that there are many religious systems in God's house, or, there are many paths to God. That would suggest that God created many "religious systems" that are valid, such a Brahmanism, Hinduism, The Greeks and Roman pantheons, Judaism, Taoism, Confucianism, Gnostism, and on and on.

Then Jesus' visit here on planet earth, just created one more path or "room", specially tailored for his friends, in which to find God.


edit on 29-4-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 

It's like me saying I believe that when Jesus broke bread with the apostles, that bread was actually ancient PIZZA!
I don't think that is a good analogy.
I already mentioned a passage that parallels this. Look at this verse.
2 Corinthians 5:1
For we know that if our earthly house, the tent we live in, is dismantled, we have a building from God, a house not built by human hands, that is eternal in the heavens.

Here is a reference to a house, according to the NETBible translation.
An old interpretation on this has the "house" being our bodies, but more recent interpretation realizes that Paul was talking about the demise of the temple cult, and its being replaced by a new institution from God, namely the church.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

If that were a true interpretation of that passages, then one could infer that there are many religious systems in God's house, or, there are many paths to God.
That may be already an assumption that many people take.
The 'standard' Christian interpretation is a little ambiguous, about maybe a city in heaven, but is really just so much speculation.

Then Jesus' visit here on planet earth, just created one more path or "room", specially tailored for his friends, in which to find God.
The big problem that the priesthood of Yahweh had, as recorded in the Old Testament, was people trying to localize worship, while the officialdom constantly fought for centralized worship.
In the time of the writing of the New Testament, the centralization idea had won out, at least as far as actual sacrifice was concerned, forcing Jews to trek to Jerusalem once a year to patronize the temple money changers.
The church was divided by districts or congregations, which would qualify it as the "many".



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


And now, the subdivision of "God's Christian house" and all the Christian neighborhoods, districts and congregations are divided, some speculate into as many as 80,000 rooms!



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


And now, the subdivision of "God's Christian house" and all the Christian neighborhoods, districts and congregations are divided, some speculate into as many as 80,000 rooms!


That's all I'm saying on this matter. On the positive side, at least none of those 80,000 different interpretations of the bible are hellbent on killing in the name of Jesus. However, if a religion can't remain united under a simple belief in peace and love, then what's the point of even calling it a religion? I don't have a belief in a biblical god, yet I want peace and love. I don't seek to hurt anyone. I try to be a good, caring human. Point being, no biblical god required.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

So what is the point of Jesus coming to Earth if he wasn't exactly needed? Are you saying that those who have never heard of Jesus still get into heaven?
First of all, Jesus came to save the world, not to get recruits for another world.
Jesus broke the spell that was over the world that said that proper religious practice towards the gods was so much ritual.
That freed people up to do things that were actually helpful to other people, thus making the world generally a better place for everyone.


You mean the spell that he put on us? Because he's the one who asked for all those rituals and sacrifices in the first place.


That's a pretty flimsy argument, and that's ignoring your reasoning of Jesus being the sole reason of people doing good. If that were the case, the world would be all flowers and sunshine, but it's not. I guess the Inquisitions and Crusades were for the greater good? They were carried out in Jesus' name after all.
edit on 29-4-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by jmdewey60
 





What has been going on over the last two hundred years is a scientific examination of scripture to get at what was originally intended by the biblical writers.


Scientific? What evidence is there for such an examination? All we have is ancient words. We know what was intended by the biblical writers - to write a good historical fiction. Funny thing is, if the bible had always been considered a work of fiction you would scream bloody hell at how poorly written it was, and at all the obvious flaws leaping out at you from every page.
edit on 4/29/2013 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)


What I find strange is that he believes the book of Acts is total fiction yet when the same is said about the gospels or Paul's letters he defends them to the death, saying they are god's infallible word.

Go figure.
edit on 29-4-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

You mean the spell that he put on us? Because he's the one who asked for all those rituals and sacrifices in the first place.
I don't think that you are going to find evidence in the New Testament to support the idea that Jesus created the rituals in the Old Testament, or the rituals of any other religion.

That's a pretty flimsy argument,
What argument? You were earlier arguing with adjensen about what happens to the people who didn't know about Jesus. I am saying that there is a net increase in goodness and better living conditions in the world, as a result of people who did believe in Jesus. If I had an argument, it would be that this environment on earth is the most important thing, rather than how many people "go to heaven", something not given much space in the New Testament.

. . . and that's ignoring your reasoning of Jesus being the sole reason of people doing good. If that were the case, the world would be all flowers and sunshine, but it's not. I guess the Inquisitions and Crusades were for the greater good? They were carried out in Jesus' name after all.
By people who hijacked Jesus' name, and represent things that would have happened even outside of religious motivations. That may sound weird, but it isn't. Do you think the German conquest of Europe in WW II was religiously motivated?
edit on 29-4-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

What I find strange is that he believes the book of Acts is total fiction yet when the same is said about the gospels or Paul's letters he defends them to the death, saying they are god's infallible word.
Acts is like a TV movie, a dramatization based on an actual event, with "the event" being the creation of the Christian church.
They are not infallible, since they were copied by people who sometimes inserted little sections of text as maybe commentary, and eventually they morphed into part of the whole, as if Paul had written it himself.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


I don't know of anyone who thinks Paul wrote Acts, it's pretty clear that Luke was the author. Google who wrote it and your answer will be Luke 100% of the time.

How do you know the gospels aren't like a TV movie? The miracles and resurrection are the dramatizations that the pagans (Rome) inserted into the story. Also, if Acts is a dramatization, why isn't Luke's gospel? They have the same author you know.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Ummmm... the bible makes it pretty clear that Jesus was the same god as the OT, it wouldn't be called the "New" Testament if he wasn't. They would be completely separate works, but they're both under the label of "the bible".

Your argument about the OT preparing the way for Jesus. If god truly wanted to save everyone, why didn't he send Jesus in the OT times?

You are OBVIOUSLY oblivious to the world around you, other wise you wouldn't say there is an increase in goodness. Just look at the world around you and your statement is proved to be 100% wrong. Stop ignoring reality.

People could hijack Jesus' name, just not in the first century. Right?
Listen to yourself.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 

I don't know of anyone who thinks Paul wrote Acts . . .
You wrote the post where you made a dichotomy between my opinions on Acts, and the Letters of Paul. What would make you think that I was talking about anything else?

. . . if Acts is a dramatization, why isn't Luke's gospel?
Did I ever say that it wasn't? I allow myself the option to cherry pick from both those books when they agree with me.
edit on 29-4-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join