Is this really faith in life?

a reply to: defcon5
There are some unsavory implications there about my beliefs, and what, perhaps, they may indicate about me, but I'm going to go with you meant no offense. I am certainly serving no self interest, for instance, in this thread. On the whole, I certainly appreciate the added information.

Did you, I wonder, read the whole thread? Because there is more behind my view than what I elucidated in the OP. I think then you would find that though I've read it, studied it, all of that has been on my own, and am certainly not the student of doctrine nor possess the knowledge that you do. What I have written is purely my own take on the what I've read , experienced in church and in life, and seen happen politically.

I simply will never agree with you, for instance, that people learn to be evil inherently. For one thing, that's a contradiction in itself, as you don't both learn something and have it inherently. It's either one or the other, as inherent is being born with it, and learning is cognitive and cause and effect association through life experience and/or study.

I think the Bible would have us believe, though, exactly what you've stated, there. And I speak to that later in the thread, as well as more fully explain what I mean by psy-ops and its current political, cultural and social basis.
There are many threads here which give a more factual basis for this assertion…..several very good ones by The Gut, for instance. There is quite a bit of information about the Aviary, alphabet agencies, etc, the UFO phenomenon, and how it may intersect with a psy-ops involving and entwined with religion. I am certainly not the first, nor will I be the last, to assert such. However, those threads and facts already outlined here, I meant this to be a more philosophical discussion of it.

originally posted by: tetra50
It seems to me that the whole concept of Jesus, having died "for our sins," is a psy ops (read: psychological operation) in cognitive therapy, behavioral therapy, of a sort, intended to shame us all into a certain way of life, or pay the price.

Quite the opposite to be honest.
Someone with a Christian background (not a Catholic one though) will understand that there is salvation by grace alone, and so its not behavior modification as your sins have been paid no matter what you do, or how bad it may be, as long as you truly repent them. You cannot “Control the masses” (another party line of the unbeliever cause which goes back to Karl Marx) in a religion of grace, you can only do this in a religion based on “works” (such as Catholicism).

We've discussed this in the thread in the last few pages before your response. I am not Catholic, nor a proponent of Karl Marx. If you care to read more of what I've written, I think you would understand the case I lay out for just how it is that just the Bible may be being used to "control the masses."

The only people who seem to equate the writing of the bible to the Council of Nicaea are those preaching the unbeliever storyline. That fictional story falls apart when met with actual, recorded, church history.

I take exception, here. Surely there is something more than either you believe or don't, as I don't consider myself an atheist because I doubt some of the historical voracity. I don't "equate the writing of the bible to the Council of Nicaea." It was an editing, and that editing has gone on, version by version, throughout history. If need be I will return to the thread to give an accounting of historical meetings where decisions were made about what would be included, and what would not. Not so fictional.

Again, as I've repeated too often already in the thread, from NIV to KJV, and even within those versions, but different editors, you can read the same chapter and verse, and find completely different wording, leading to different meanings. The editing of versions through the years has supported different political agendas of the times it was done. This is discussed within the thread, as well.

Jeremiah was re-written, to give one example, because his first draft was destroyed in a fire. Language is an issue, as well, as in Hebrew there are some words that do not have an adequate representation in English, and vice versa. Aramaic, which was spoken in Jesus' time, exists (in very small instances), in books thought to have been written before the NT, or before Aramaic existed.

I certainly welcome your knowledge to the thread. But I don't think you've read more than the OP. I comment sometimes before I read a whole thread, or at least, when commenting when I haven't, try to make an allowance in my comments that there may be issues I have not considered addressed later. To be honest, I highly doubt that the rest of the thread will be to your liking, or agreement, either, from your missive, but at least before being dismissive to that degree, I would appreciate your reading it.
Thanks,
Tetra

a reply to: defcon5

You had Church fathers who were taught directly by the apostles and trained the next generation.

John didn't teach Polycarp.
When Polycarp was young, he had heard John speaking, once.

a reply to: tetra50

Interesting you bring up the Dark Ages. Though a little off topic, perhaps relating to more historical psy-ops:

I brought that up recently in another thread on this sub forum.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
That was something I learned about a few years ago.
There was a problem figuring out the history, and had to fabricate history to fill in the empty years after they decided what the date was at that time.

a reply to: jmdewey60
Also worthy of note here, I think, is the change from the Julian Calendar to the Gregorian….
Just a little more to spin one's brain….as though anyone needs it.

originally posted by: tetra50
I simply will never agree with you, for instance, that people learn to be evil inherently. For one thing, that's a contradiction in itself, as you don't both learn something and have it inherently. It's either one or the other, as inherent is being born with it, and learning is cognitive and cause and effect association through life experience and/or study.

Okay, then people are born inherently evil.
Does any parent teach a child to lie?
How about to throw a tantrum?
Be envious of something another child has?
Etc...
Parents spend their lives teaching their children to be good, because sinfulness and selfishness is the inherent human condition.

originally posted by: tetra50
We've discussed this in the thread in the last few pages before your response. I am not Catholic, nor a proponent of Karl Marx. If you care to read more of what I've written, I think you would understand the case I lay out for just how it is that just the Bible may be being used to "control the masses."

Only a religion based on works can be used for control.
In other words a religions that says “if you DO this or that you will be punished/rewarded”.
True Christianity does not teach that, it teaches “okay you did that, and you're sorry for it, its forgiven”, and “You're rewarded even though you have done nothing to deserve it”.

originally posted by: tetra50
I take exception, here. Surely there is something more than either you believe or don't, as I don't consider myself an atheist because I doubt some of the historical voracity.

The idea that the Council of Nicaea had anything to do with the Bible is fiction based on the Dan Brown's story “The DaVinci Code”, and has been being bandied about by unbelievers as though its fact ever since the movie came out...

Constantine collated an entirely new Bible at the Council of Nicaea, containing only books that speak of Jesus as divine. All books that portrayed him as human were burned. - Dan Brown The Da Vinci Code

That is NOT true, and even studied nonbelievers know that this is not true:
History Myth Busters The Council of Nicaea
The minutes of the Council of Nicaea still exist, and you can easily research all the topics discussed in the council.

originally posted by: tetra50
It was an editing, and that editing has gone on, version by version, throughout history. If need be I will return to the thread to give an accounting of historical meetings where decisions were made about what would be included, and what would not. Not so fictional.

You'd be incorrect.
Nothing about the bible was “edited”, “chosen”, or “printed” at the Council of Nicaea, the Roman Catholic Church didn't even canonize their Bible until the Council of Trent in the 1500's. This was only done in response to the writing of the “Luther Bible” in common German.

The biggest event at the Council of Nicaea was the Aryan Heresy.
Arianism
And the writing of the Nicene Creed:
Nicean Creed
First Council of Nicaea
Council of Trent

originally posted by: tetra50
Again, as I've repeated too often already in the thread, from NIV to KJV, and even within those versions, but different editors, you can read the same chapter and verse, and find completely different wording, leading to different meanings. The editing of versions through the years has supported different political agendas of the times it was done. This is discussed within the thread, as well.

Those are translational issues, they are not “rewriting” the bible. You can buy a Strong's Concordance, or use any online source to pull up comparisons, translations, Strong’s Concordance, or even the original Text to translate yourself.

The Church in general finds it more important for folks to be able to read the bible, then to have to study linguistics for years to understand it. Like it or not they have to be able to teach to the lowest common denominator, and for some folks to read and understand “Old English”, “Latin”, “Aramaic”, and “Hebrew” is just to much to ask. To them its more important that its able to be read, than whether you read “your” instead of “thy”. However, there is nothing stopping you (or any Christian) from reading whatever translation you feel most comfortable with.

Essentially, as long as you get the central message of accepting Christ, that he died for your sins, and that you are then saved by grace, the rest of it doesn't have to be that “exact”. If you think that you are going to find some special “hidden knowledge” in the bible by reading a certain translation, then you are not looking to Christ for salvation, but to yourself and your ability to find said knowledge. This is much of what Gnosticism teaches. You can find special secret salvation through “hidden” (Gnostic) knowledge. Sorry, but that is a work and contrary to grace.

originally posted by: tetra50
Jeremiah was re-written, to give one example, because his first draft was destroyed in a fire. Language is an issue, as well, as in Hebrew there are some words that do not have an adequate representation in English, and vice versa. Aramaic, which was spoken in Jesus' time, exists (in very small instances), in books thought to have been written before the NT, or before Aramaic existed.

Your talking about the Old Testament, that does not apply to a Christian, and is included in the Christian Bible as background information to the New Testament. You cannot fault Christians for mistranslations in the Old Testament, as much of it came from 2nd century BC Jewish scholars in the form of the Septuagint, some of which was later used by St Jerome in 382 to write the Vulgate.
Septuagint
Vulgate
So this is essentially a Jewish translation from Jewish sources of Jewish documents which is even OLDER then what I mention above. Some of which may still exist, and others have since been found/corroborated with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Either way though, we live under the “New Covenant” which is covered by the “New Testament”, much of the “Old Testament” only ever applied to the Jews to begin with.

originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: defcon5

You had Church fathers who were taught directly by the apostles and trained the next generation.

John didn't teach Polycarp.
When Polycarp was young, he had heard John speaking, once.

Both Irenaeus and Tertullian refer to Polycarp as a “Disciple of John the Apostle”, not as “hearing him speak once”. St Jerome stated that Polycarp was not only a Disciple of John, but also that John had ordained Polycarp as the Bishop of Smyrna.

a reply to: defcon5

Does any parent teach a child to lie?
How about to throw a tantrum?
Be envious of something another child has?
Etc...
Parents spend their lives teaching their children to be good, because sinfulness and selfishness is the inherent human condition.

LOL. This is your definition of "inherent evil???" Wow.

Only a religion based on works can be used for control.
In other words a religions that says “if you DO this or that you will be punished/rewarded”.
True Christianity does not teach that, it teaches “okay you did that, and you're sorry for it, its forgiven”, and “You're rewarded even though you have done nothing to deserve it”.

Ridiculous. Not even logical. Philosophical aspects of thought, all by themselves, can be used in a controlling manner. I.E. We can logically assume that actions are informed by thoughts, hopefully.
Jesus' works were frequently prefaced by parable. Parable is symbolic and metaphoric, in its nature. This involves thought, informing what he intended in action.
The point being, by degrees, accepting one precept leads to another, which slowly yet inexorably, leads to the acceptance of certain actions.

You'd be incorrect.
Nothing about the bible was “edited”, “chosen”, or “printed” at the Council of Nicaea, the Roman Catholic Church didn't even canonize their Bible until the Council of Trent in the 1500's. This was only done in response to the writing of the “Luther Bible” in common German.

No, you would be, actually, according to the link I've given here.
www.fordham.edu
The document explains adoption of words, and explanations of terms which would be included. The process is generally thought of as editing.
What I quote below describes the same process.

Marcion's canon[edit]
Marcion of Sinope was the first Christian leader in recorded history (though later, considered heretical) to propose and delineate a uniquely Christian canon[17] (c. 140 AD). This included 10 epistles from St. Paul, as well as a version of the Gospel of Luke, which today is known as the Gospel of Marcion. In so doing, he established a particular way of looking at religious texts that persists in Christian thought today.[18]

After Marcion, Christians began to divide texts into those that aligned well with the "canon" (measuring stick) of accepted theological thought and those that promoted heresy. This played a major role in finalizing the structure of the collection of works called the Bible. It has been proposed that the initial impetus for the proto-orthodox Christian project of canonization flowed from opposition to the canonization of Marcion.[18]

By the early 3rd century, Christian theologians like Origen of Alexandria may have been using—or at least were familiar with—the same 27 books found in modern New Testament editions, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of some of the writings (see also Antilegomena).[20] Likewise by 200, the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them.[21] Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings were accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the 3rd century.[22]

Eastern Church[edit]
Alexandrian Fathers[edit]
Origen of Alexandria (184/5-253/4), an early scholar involved in the codification of the Biblical canon, had a thorough education both in Christian theology and in pagan philosophy, but was posthumously condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553. Origen's canon included all of the books in the current Catholic canon except for four books: James, 2nd Peter, and the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John.[23]

He also included the Shepherd of Hermas which was later rejected. The religious scholar Bruce Metzger described Origen's efforts, saying "The process of canonization represented by Origen proceeded by way of selection, moving from many candidates for inclusion to fewer."[24] This was one of the first major attempts at the compilation of certain books and letters as authoritative and inspired teaching for the Early Church at the time, although it is unclear whether Origen intended for his list to be authoritative itself.

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books that would become the New Testament–27 book–proto-canon,[25] and used the phrase "being canonized" (kanonizomena) in regard to them.[26] Athanasius also included the Book of Baruch, as well as the Letter of Jeremiah, in his Old Testament canon. However, from this canon, he omitted the book of Esther.

This, too, describes an editing process, whereby what is included and what isn't is decided.

The rest of what you say here, continues to indicate to me you have not read the thread. I will not debate anyone on what I've written, if they cannot even be bothered to read it.

If you don't understand why translation of language is important, when there are words without an English equivalent, there is no point continuing any discussion. If you don't understand how just the order of words, much less changing of words, changes meanings, or think that isn't really that important, there is, again, no point continuing discussion.
It's another thread getting bogged down and missing the point, because we're going to spend time debating terms like what editing means. I'll pass, thanks.

As to the OT not really applying to Christians, wow. Okay. Not even going to address that. I wonder that it's even included, then. You are engaging in editing, right there, of what you so vehemently support.

If you believe "history" is linear, or at least the description of it, and isn't edited to serve agendas, perhaps this isn't the thread for you, simply. If you have a didactic belief system, this thread is definitely not for you, which likely is why you haven't read much besides the OP…..

a reply to: defcon5

Both Irenaeus and Tertullian refer to Polycarp as a “Disciple of John the Apostle”, not as “hearing him speak once”. St Jerome stated that Polycarp was not only a Disciple of John, but also that John had ordained Polycarp as the Bishop of Smyrna.

OK, looks like I got one of my references wrong.
I was just going from memory earlier.
It was Irenaeus who heard Polycarp "in his youth" according to the Wikipedia article on Polycarp.
Papias was probably who I was thinking of, who had at one point heard John.
Tertullian was a very credulous person who read Latin versions of the limited amount of Christian writings that he could get ahold of.
Jerome may have just copied what Tertullian had written earlier.
Jerome lived into the fifth century.
There was a lot of just forged writings back then, when it suddenly became popular to be able to trace a supposed succession from the Apostles to seated bishops of the various churches.

a reply to: defcon5

What do you think the ultimate goal of Christianity is/ is there one? Of course there may be multiple goals, but is there an ultimate general one?

a reply to: ImaFungi
Christianity is a faith not an organization with a goal. The church is an organization. I guess the goal of any Christian is to try and live in the manner that is as pleasing to God as you can, do his will, and repent when you fall short of that. Ultimately Gods commands to us are to Love your neighbor as yourself, and love God above all (the “Golden Rule”). That's really about it as salvation itself is through grace, not through works, and most other things either fall under one of the above or are works.

a reply to: defcon5
Nicaea. So what? Council of Antioch, and on and on. There've been many. I've quoted information about editing you didn't even reply to.

I'm not here, nor anywhere in the thread do I ask anyone, to speak about what religion they adhere to. Now we aren't even talking about the first post I made anymore.

From all that you write, I cannot tell at all that you are reading anything I've written. I mean that sincerely, no disrespect. I write my points and your responses seem to have almost nothing to do with what I've written. So, it's then not a response…but you seem to be writing your own thread…..

I'm trying to have a discussion about how the Bible text, and supposed history is used or misused today.
Tetra

originally posted by: tetra50
a reply to: defcon5

Does any parent teach a child to lie?
How about to throw a tantrum?
Be envious of something another child has?
Etc...
Parents spend their lives teaching their children to be good, because sinfulness and selfishness is the inherent human condition.

LOL. This is your definition of "inherent evil???" Wow.

Actually, yes it is.
The root of all evil is love of self (not money ... Love of Money is a type of love of self)
Love of self is exhibited in acts such as greed, envy, lying, cheating, etc...

a reply to: tetra50
I think that the problem is that you are over-thinking a simple answer, not that I am taking you off course. Salvation is through grace, that is the message, so what difference does it make if the translation of the bible you read says “you” or “thy”? If you are looking for salvation through a certain translation, then you are missing the whole message to begin with. Understand?

a reply to: defcon5

Because to many, particularly the whole study of theology, these things do, in fact, matter. How we got from point A to point whatever is very important. For if you stop critically thinking, you can be sold anything……

I'm not really speaking about salvation in this thread. I've illustrated over and over my points, and what I am thinking about. I can't help, again, but to say we have a disconnect partially because you are debating a thread you haven't read.

And "thy" substituted for "you" in translation issues isn't even beginning to address what I've written.

It may be that simple for you. Fine. I don't wish to challenge your faith in that salvation.

The thread addresses far more than salvation, and is different than that intent.
Tetra

originally posted by: defcon5
a reply to: ImaFungi
Christianity is a faith not an organization with a goal. The church is an organization. I guess the goal of any Christian is to try and live in the manner that is as pleasing to God as you can, do his will, and repent when you fall short of that. Ultimately Gods commands to us are to Love your neighbor as yourself, and love God above all (the “Golden Rule”). That's really about it as salvation itself is through grace, not through works, and most other things either fall under one of the above or are works.

What do you think of revelations? Is it not possible that God has a greater goal than for Christians to just try and live well and be good, and would this not then be a greater goal of Christianity, or the greatest, and what Jesus was all about? What I am asking is; Do you not think Gods greatest goal would be to have all humans be good and live well, and is this then not what he expects? Or you think he views earth, knows people will constantly be born, and thinks, "hey, maybe some of those people want to be good...Hey Jesus, go see if you can try and tell those people to be good and see what happens", "You got it pops", Jesus says with an epic fist pump. ~time progresses~ God watches earth "Yes...excellent, there are some people that want to be good....well thats good enough for me".

I am just saying... if I was God...or a parent teaching my children, I wouldnt be satisfied until all learned and knew and understand the value of being good.

originally posted by: defcon5

originally posted by: tetra50
a reply to: defcon5

Does any parent teach a child to lie?
How about to throw a tantrum?
Be envious of something another child has?
Etc...
Parents spend their lives teaching their children to be good, because sinfulness and selfishness is the inherent human condition.

LOL. This is your definition of "inherent evil???" Wow.

Actually, yes it is.
The root of all evil is love of self (not money

... Love of Money is a type of love of self)
Love of self is exhibited in acts such as greed, envy, lying, cheating, etc...

Sure it is, taken to extremes.
But the words were: Love thy neighbor as you love yourself. In other words, care for others and value them, as you value yourself. Those that behave greedily, are motivated to act out of envy, lying, cheating….are not valuing themselves, either. Loving and valuing yourself is to behave with a sense of honor, in how you treat others, and also what this energy provides to your soul. As well as, stifling and subjugating your humanity doesn't lead to good mental health or actions, either. It also leads people to be very judgemental and hard on others.

It isn't that you are not supposed to love yourself, for if you did not, why would you expect Christ to give you salvation, anyway? And if you didn't, then you probably don't value others very much, either.
I don't agree that's the root of all evil. Evil may be at once simpler, and more complex than that.

Children don't throw tantrums because they're loving themselves. It's not all that comfortable being angry and throwing a tantrum. And envy can be a powerful stimulator to better one's situation, and this can and often does extend to those who rely upon you having their situation bettered as a result.

I see you understand how emotion influences thought and behavior. And yet, it's taken several paragraphs of writing to get to the point where it's possible to apply this same precept to what I'm saying, which you are actually affirming in various places, even as you argue with me.

The sacrifice of Christ carries with it such emotion and glorification, and is lauded to the extent that, people of faith, rather than tempering their human condition with acceptance, instead are engaged in a feedback loop which has them wishing to sacrifice, and be Christ-like, themselves, which is what I mean by the belief system being easily utilized by those with ulterior and less than faithful motives in order to psy-ops, control and manipulate.
Sure, sacrifice is an important part of being a Christian, a good person.

But what you've said here above about evil and self love, the examples you've given which are just emotions that are part of being human, and our reaction or what we do with them in action, rather than having the emotion, is what is important.

An occupying force, say, or a different species altogether, motivated in different ways than the belief system you are espousing, would have no trouble turning you into a slave. Under different management? The new boss is the same as the old boss, and it isn't Christ or God. But the belief system set up which appears to honor, worship and respect Him, actually predisposes to objectification.

a reply to: tetra50

Maybe I understand what you are saying, in this sense that, many Christians think they have to behave and exist a certain way according to an interpretation of scripture, and this way they think they have to behave, and then do behave, is not entirely necessary or true, so in essence, they are missing out on potentially harmless aspects of their personality and life, and it is that, a potential image of themselves and their existence in the world, which is stifled, or sacrificed, by certain interpretations of scripture...?

For instance the '~crazy' hardcore bootcamp like Christians that yell at and beat children and such...and all sorts of off shoots and varieties all birthed out of the simple seedling of a concept that is the birth of Jesus era and the writings about such time transpiring after.

Finally, somebody noticed the oldest "everybody gets an award, regardless of achievement," the "gift of salvation for believing." Modern "conservatives" blame a award for everyone on liberal thinking, while touting a "Christian" viewpoint of life. Personally, I think only the Pentateuch, the Books of Moses, the first five books of the Old Testament and the first four books of the New Testament are worth considering. The remaining books of the Old Testament are the Prophets and the Law. The remaining books of the New Testament are Pauline doctrine.

a reply to: Brandyjack

. . . "everybody gets an award, regardless of achievement," the "gift of salvation for believing." . . .

Paul didn't teach that.
People today do teach that, while only pretending that Paul backs them up.
They do that by making up new definitions for all the words that Paul used, then taking verse fragments and splicing them together in long chains, completely out of context, to appear as if they are saying the same thing as what modern pop-culture religion says.

. . . the Books of Moses . . .

Those are "The Law", too, or rather are, specifically the Law.

The remaining books of the New Testament are Pauline doctrine.

Revelation isn't.
James isn't.
Jude isn't.
Peter isn't.
Hebrews isn't.
The Letters of John aren't.