Conquer Club

Bible Origins -- discussion

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Bible Origins -- discussion

Postby warmonger1981 on Mon Nov 09, 2015 9:33 pm

In the opening chapter of Genesis it is stated that after creating light and separating it from darkness, the seven Elohim divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. Having thus established the inferior universe in perfect accord with the esoteric teachings of the Hindu, Egyptian, and Greek Mysteries, the Elohim next turned their attention to the production of flora and fauna and lastly man. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. * * * So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, * * *."
Consider in thoughtful silence the startling use of pronouns in the above extract from "the most perfect example of English literature." When the plural and androgynous Hebrew word Elohim was translated into the singular and sexless word God, the opening chapters of Genesis were rendered comparatively meaningless. It may have been feared that had the word been correctly translated as "the male and female creative agencies," the Christians would have been justly accused of worshiping a plurality of gods in the face of their repeated claims to monotheism! The plural form of the pronouns us and our reveals unmistakably, however, the pantheistic nature of Divinity. Further, the androgynous constitution of the Elohim (God) is disclosed in the next verse, where he (referring to God) is said to have created man in his own image, male and female; or, more properly, as the division of the sexes had not yet taken place, male-female. This is a deathblow to the time-honored concept that God is a masculine potency as portrayed by Michelangelo on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. The Elohim then order these androgynous beings to be fruitful. Note that neither the masculine nor the feminine principle as yet existed in a separate state! And, lastly, note the word "replenish." The prefix re denotes "back to an original or former state or position," or "repetition or restoration." (See Webster's International Dictionary, 1926.) This definite reference to a humanity existing prior to the "creation of man" described in Genesis must be evident to the most casual reader of Scripture.
An examination of Bible dictionaries, encyclopedias, and commentaries discloses the plural form of the word Elohim to be beyond the comprehension of their respected authors and editors. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge thus sums up the controversy over the plural form of the word Elohim: "Does it now or did it originally signify plurality of divine being?" A Dictionary of the Bible, edited by James Hastings, contains the following conclusion, which echoes the sentiments of more critical etymologists of the Bible: "The use of the plur. Elohim is also difficult to explain." Dr. Havernick considers the plural form Elohim to signify the abundance and super-richness existing in the Divine Being. His statement, which appears in The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopædia, is representative of the efforts made to circumvent this extremely damaging word. The International Standard Bible Dictionary considers the explanations offered by modern theologians--of which Dr. Havernick's is a fair example--to be too ingenious to have been conceived by the early Hebrews and maintains that the word represents the survival of a polytheistic stage of Semitic thought. The Jewish Encyclopedia supports the latter assumption with the following concise statement: "As far as epigraphic material, traditions, and folk-lore throw light on the question, the Semites are shown to be of polytheistic leanings."
Manley P Hall
User avatar
Captain warmonger1981
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: ST.PAUL

Re: Bible Origins -- discussion

Postby jgordon1111 on Mon Nov 09, 2015 9:56 pm

Warmonger, either you found a pre20th century Hebrew tanakh or you have done your research, either way cudos, you seem to preempt me when you post, I was saving that infor later in the discussion. That's twice am I that obvious where I am going when I post? If I am go ahead and explain why there are 2 versions of God making man in the bible, but only one in the Jewish tanakh, unless something has changed and I am unaware.
Image
User avatar
Private jgordon1111
 
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:58 pm

Re: Bible Origins -- discussion

Postby warmonger1981 on Tue Nov 10, 2015 7:58 am

I've done some research on Ancient Mystery Religions and Freemasonry. Masons seem to understand that all religions have similarities or preach falshoods.

As far as Melchizedek goes. Tzor stated something earlier about him.

In the majority of Masoretic Hebrew texts the name is written as two words, Meleḵi-ṣedeq מלכי־צדק,[4] rendered in one word in both the Septuagint (Μελχισεδέκ) and Vulgate (Melchisedech). The Authorised King James Version of 1611 renders the name Melchizedek when translating from the Hebrew, and Melchisedec in the New Testament.

The name is composed from the two elements melek(h) "king" and ṣedeq "righteous(ness)".[5] With the addition of the enclitic possessive pronoun (-ī), malk-ī means "my king", so that the name literally translates to "my king is righteousness" (or "my king is Ṣedeq").[6] By the Hellenistic era it appears the name came to be associated with the messiah and paraphrased as "king of righteousness".[7]

"My King is Righteousness" is interpreted as a theophoric name associating Melchizedek's god, El Elyon with the epithet Ṣedeq ("Righteousness"), which is otherwise attested as the name of Canaanite deities.[8] Thus, Ṣedeq and El Elyon ("God most high") may have been two epithets of the same Jebusite god, identified as an astral deity, perhaps eponymous of Salem itself: Salim or Shalem (שלם) is attested as a god, presumably identified with the evening star, in Ugaritic mythology; URUŠalim in this case would be the city of Salim, the Jebusite astral deity.[9] The theonym is also preserved in Phoenician (ṣdq; Philo: Συδυκ), a deity identified with Roman Jupiter.[10]

The name is formed in parallel with Adoni-ṣedeq אדני־צדק, also a king of Salem, mentioned in the Book of Joshua (10:1-3), where the element malik "king" is replaced by adon "lord".[11] Parallel theophoric names, with Sedeq replaced by Yahu, are those of Malchijah and Adonijah, both biblical characters placed in the time of David.[12]

Psalm 110 alludes to Melchizedek as a prototype of the messiah. This led to the re-interpretation of the name as "king of righteousness" in Hellenistic Judaism.[13] Based on evidence found in the Qumran Scrolls, it was also used as a name of the Archangel Michael, interpreted as a heavenly priest; Michael as Melchi-zedek contrast with Belial, who is given the name of Melchi-resha "king of wickedness".[14] The text of the Epistle to the Hebrews follows this interpretation in stating explicitly tha the name in Greek translation (ἑρμηνευόμενος) means βασιλεὺς δικαιοσύνης ("king of righteousness"), omitting translation of the possessive suffix; the same passage interprets Melchizedek's title of king of Salem as translating to βασιλεὺς εἰρήνης "king of peace", the context being the presentation of Melchizedek's as an eternal priesthood associated with Jesus Christ (ἀφωμοιωμένος δὲ τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ θεοῦ μένει ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸ διηνεκές "made like unto the Son of God abideth a priest continually").[15]
Souced from Wikipedia

So even the name Melchizedek has multiple meanings.

Who was the mysterious Melchizedek mentioned only a few times in the Bible? Surprisingly, his name is more of a title than a personal reference. It comes from two Hebrew words, melek and tsedeq. The word melek means 'king' and tsedeq means 'righteousness' (Strong's Concordance #H4442). Because a king is preeminent in his jurisdiction, he had to be preeminent in righteousness. Before reviewing our first scriptural reference, note that this priest in the book of Genesis, chapter 14, was the king of SALEM. The word Salem, as defined by Strong's #H8004, means 'peace.' This makes Melchizedek the "King of Peace" (Hebrews 7:2).
The first scripture referring to this priest is in the book of Genesis chapter 14, near the middle of the chapter: "Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was the priest of God Most High. And he blessed him and said: 'Blessed be Abram of God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth; And blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand'" (Genesis 14:14, 16 - 18, NKJV throughout).

The second reference to this priest of God is in the book of Psalms: "The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool . . . ' The Lord has sworn and will not relent, 'You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek' " (Psalm 110:1 - 4).
Sourced from biblestudy.org


BTW most religions viewed a God as having both sexes. Not in the rude sense of physical genetalia but in the spiritual/psychological sense.
User avatar
Captain warmonger1981
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: ST.PAUL

Re: Bible Origins -- discussion

Postby jimboston on Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:24 am

warmonger1981 wrote:Having thus established the inferior universe in perfect accord with the esoteric teachings of the Hindu, Egyptian, and Greek Mysteries...


Are you saying this phrase is in the Bible? Which version?

I can't tell where you are quoting the Bible and where you are quoting other writings or your own ideas.
User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Bible Origins -- discussion

Postby jimboston on Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:37 am

warmonger1981 wrote:BTW most religions viewed a God as having both sexes. Not in the rude sense of physical genetalia but in the spiritual/psychological sense.


Mainstream Catholicism does not and has not viewed God as having both sexes in any way, shape, or form.
At least through most of it's history; I can't speak to early Christianity.

I can't speak for all Christian sects... but I'm sure the vast majority of people think of God as a "Him".

---

Catholicism at least has been schizophrenic about the idea of Monotheism... versus the Plurality of "God".

They make a big deal out of the "Holy Trinity"... but then they say there is "One God, Father Almighty".

I accept the possibility that any Almighty Omniscient Creator might exist in a manner that is hard to comprehend... i.e. be both many "Beings" and one "Being" at the same time, or be both "male" and "female".. while also being neither. There are lots of concepts that exist in nature/science that are hard to comprehend... the idea of "infinity" for example, or "pi", or extra dimensions in space, or fact that time isn't constant. So the idea that the manner of existence of the "Creator" does not coincide with our "simple" existence is plausible within that framework.

So why was the Bible been modified to make God a "He" and make "Him" singular?
User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Bible Origins -- discussion

Postby jgordon1111 on Tue Nov 10, 2015 10:13 am

Hmm Warmonger it seems you do actually know your religion, out of all speaking here you might actually be the only one who has cared enough to seek info beyond what is taught today. Btw do you have change for a quarter?
Image
User avatar
Private jgordon1111
 
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:58 pm

Re: Bible Origins -- discussion

Postby AndyDufresne on Tue Nov 10, 2015 10:23 am

jgordon1111 wrote:Hmm Warmonger it seems you do actually know your religion, out of all speaking here you might actually be the only one who has cared enough to seek info beyond what is taught today. Btw do you have change for a quarter?

Image


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24935
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: Bible Origins -- discussion

Postby jimboston on Tue Nov 10, 2015 10:56 am

jgordon1111 wrote:... cared enough to seek info beyond what is taught today. Btw do you have change for a quarter?


Beyond what is "taught today" where?
User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Bible Origins -- discussion

Postby tzor on Tue Nov 10, 2015 11:01 am

jimboston wrote:I'm sure many religious people would have a problem with anything other than "He" or "Father".


The question of "He" can get quite complex.
The question of "Father" can actually get maddening.

A lot of the problem has to do with the development of the words before people actually knew the real biology of procreation. The "father" "creates" but does not "carry within" ... (note in many languages "mother" is actually "one who gives birth to" ... as in the case of the term "Mother of God")

But wait it gets stranger especially when keeping in context the original meanings. You see the female both has the egg and the ovary, normally this is a package deal but in the case of artificial conception, you can use the sperm of one man, the egg of one woman, and the womb of yet another woman. The former woman is known as a "genetic mother" (sounds like an oxymoron) and the later "surrogate mother" (she may be a "substitute" but she carried the labor pains) and then there is even the term "legal mother" (and that's a whole other can of worms).
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Bible Origins -- discussion

Postby tzor on Tue Nov 10, 2015 11:07 am

jimboston wrote:Catholicism at least has been schizophrenic about the idea of Monotheism... versus the Plurality of "God".

They make a big deal out of the "Holy Trinity"... but then they say there is "One God, Father Almighty".


This is probably not the best place to discuss complicated notions of unity. But I'm always willing to discuss why God is not the BORG.

Total unity without loss of individuality; one on being; three in persons.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Bible Origins -- discussion

Postby jgordon1111 on Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:17 pm

Jim,tzor, again I point out that there is nothing original to Christianity,actual records exist of other religions using a holy trinity, summerian,even Hindu going back 3000+ yrs before Christianity existed.again my point here is learn about the religion you follow, then decide what is right, not just blind faith. Jim,tzor this was not exactly pointed at you at least you seem willing to discuss with clarity rather than just using erroneous dogma to push a agenda that is counter productive to rationality.
Image
User avatar
Private jgordon1111
 
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:58 pm

Re: Bible Origins -- discussion

Postby Bernie Sanders on Tue Nov 10, 2015 1:41 pm

I use to be messed up on drugs, now I'm messed up on the Lord.

User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Bernie Sanders
 
Posts: 5105
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 2:30 pm

Re: Bible Origins -- discussion

Postby tzor on Tue Nov 10, 2015 2:29 pm

jgordon1111 wrote:Jim,tzor, again I point out that there is nothing original to Christianity,actual records exist of other religions using a holy trinity, summerian,even Hindu going back 3000+ yrs before Christianity existed.


But the number is actually the least important part of the trinity. There are a lot of things that on the surface looks like Christian notions; gods having strange bizarre sex with women to have children, gods merging together to form a unified deity, and so forth. There are even attempts of mortals to become god as well (they generally end in failure).

But Christianity only sees this as the details of a much larger and somewhat unique theme. God became one with man so that man can become one with God. The first element of this is through "Jesus," begotten, not made, one in being with the Father, became man. Through his unique high priesthood he returns to the Father to send the spirit of God on the believers, bringing them closer to both himself and the father. We can see this vision through the writings of Paul who was first introduced to Christianity by the vision where he told by Jesus, "why are you persecuting me?" He wasn't, because Jesus had been crucified years ago, but he was persecuting his followers at the time. This is the same argument that John uses in his letters where he says at the end of time we will be like him because we will see him as he is.

I may be wrong but I generally don't see this in other religions; the notion of God coming to us to bring us to Him. There is the notion of God "married" to his people, but this never had the full implication of the Genesis account of the creation of Eve being the model of marriage where the two become "one flesh."
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Bible Origins -- discussion

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Nov 10, 2015 4:04 pm

jgordon1111 wrote:Jim,tzor, again I point out that there is nothing original to Christianity,actual records exist of other religions using a holy trinity, summerian,even Hindu going back 3000+ yrs before Christianity existed.again my point here is learn about the religion you follow, then decide what is right, not just blind faith. Jim,tzor this was not exactly pointed at you at least you seem willing to discuss with clarity rather than just using erroneous dogma to push a agenda that is counter productive to rationality.

I see, so its surprising that versions of truth pervade throughout many cultures? This is not proof that any one is either wrong or correct. I could be said to prove that they all hint toward truth or it could be said that they are all just based on basic human ideas and concepts. It is just not an argument either way.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Bible Origins -- discussion

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Nov 10, 2015 4:29 pm

jimboston wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote: To contrast, your claim that NONE of it is from witnesses...


I don't believe I ever made that claim.
Oh please, not going to get into another semantic discussion.


jimboston wrote:I care about the "miraculous" stuff. I content none of that was written by witnesses.
You have a right to your beliefs. You do not have a right to claim they are facts. That is my entire dispute. You keep claiming things are facts that are actually your beliefs.

I believe parts of the Bible are witness accounts. You do not. Neither of us is going to prove this. It is a matter of belief.

jimboston wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote: and moreover that this is proven fact is just wrong.


What is proven wrong? Are you telling me you have proof the Bible (or vast majority) was written by witnesses?
I am telling you that you cannot prove this. I never said I could prove it was written by witnesses, i said tt is what I and many Christians/Jews believe. Also, I never said "vast majority" see the above semantic discussion. If it makes it easier, I should have said "some".

Some of the Bible is based on witnesses. This is my belief and you cannot prove it wrong. I never said I could prove it true, though there are some portions of it that have been backed up by historical evidence/other sources. For example, some kings, some other events. (parts have been contradicted -- particularly the historical lines of kings and such.)

jimboston wrote:Writing a letter to a distant people, talking about how they should act... is not a statement by a witness.

You've proven nothing, except for the fact that you are an idiot. :)
Nice try. Again, I said parts are believed to be written by witnesses.

jimboston wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:YOU and YOU ALONE here in this thread are claiming that every word in the Bible is utterly unchangeable...


Actually I am claiming the opposite of this. I am claiming that it's been changed so many times that we really can't be sure what the original author(s) wrote or intended to write.
Yeah, looks like you cut off part of what I said. You make the claim that these changes invalidate the Bible. I disagree. Tzor has already addressed much of that, I won't repeat it.

PLAYER57832 wrote:... or that if it is not utterly unchangeable, then it cannot be the word of God.


So it's OK for us humans to modify the Word of God?

You are not seriously stating that this is OK. I mean if there was an Omniscient God, wouldn't He/She be pissed of if we changed the meaning of stuff He/She told us???[/quote] Depends on what you mean.

A. I and Tzor have already stated that your understanding of this is incorrect.
B. We believe that the important parts do come through. There are details that have been mistranslated or that even have to be altered to fit understanding in a particular culture. One example is probably Joseph and his coat. Sometimes it is translated "many colors" sometimes "long sleeves". The detail does not matter, what matters is that this was a fine coat that made his brothers jealous.
C. If you insist on seeing the Bible as only literal fundamentalists do, then yes your argument holds sway -- look to them for disputes. For the rest of us, there is a huge difference between saying every last word came from God and saying that the intentions and faith come from God. Tzor and I already said that the Bible is a collection of many books, each with different purpose and intent. Laws, history, poems and songs, advice, and finally -- God's old and New Covenants.

jimboston wrote:Like if we took "Though Shall Not Kill"; and turned it into "Though Shall Not Kill good Catholics... but it's OK to burn Heretics at the Stake."

Oh wait... the Church did that.

Either it's God's Word. in which case it's immutable... or it's not.
This is incorrect on several points. The church is not the Bible. The church is people who are fully fallible. Even the Roman Catholic Church admits that its Popes can and have sinned. They just say that his religious dictates are "protected"/given by God.

The inquisition, etc was wrong. Many Christians use the Bible to justify their behavior, but that doesn't mean that a full reading of the Bible truly supports their actions or that God's spirit justifies their actions. We are fallible human beings. That is, per our belief, why we need the church and God. Roman Catholics look more to the church itself to protect their beliefs/to encourage "correct" action. Protestants perhaps more to the Bible itself. (though there are many variations on each).

Beyond that, this "thou shalt not kill" is actually more of a modern and Protestant interpretation (ironic, given you were citing the Inquisition and such). Many Jews translate it as "thou shalt not murder" or even "thou shalt not murder thy brother". The question then is, who is "thy brother". Some people indeed consider it just to be certain groups. I and most modern Christians disagree with at least that last, though the first -- it is "murder" rather than "kill" is very much still debated.
jimboston wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:People have changed, as people change our view of the words written varies.



The fact that our idea of "GOD" has evolved is kinda proof that the God of the (Christian) Bible isn't really accurate.
No, it is not, though you can believe as you wish.
jimboston wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:And.. for those of you who are cheering at this display of idiocy and failure to adhere to fact. Well... you show your own ignorance.


No one is cheering you on Player.
I believe I just said that.
Last edited by PLAYER57832 on Wed Nov 11, 2015 10:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Bible Origins -- discussion

Postby PLAYER57832 on Tue Nov 10, 2015 4:32 pm

mrswdk wrote:PLAYER: you disagree with me and don't respond to my non sequiturs, therefore you are a dishonest liar.

lol-- to what did I not respond?

If you mean this, Tzor and I both did, but will again...

mrswdk wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:All teachings are ALWAYS able to be questioned, but error in one area does not mean all information is in err. Science is the classic example. That there have been mistakes in Evolutionary theory in no way means that everything to do with Evolution is wrong.


Nor can we disregard the entirety of the Old Testament just because we've decided we prefer Jesus's Confucius-inspired brand of Christianity.
\
I don't, most Christians don't.
Also, you don't seem to understand much of Confucius if you think what Christ and he say are the same, as Tsor stated.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Bible Origins -- discussion

Postby jimboston on Tue Nov 10, 2015 7:51 pm

tzor wrote:
jimboston wrote:I'm sure many religious people would have a problem with anything other than "He" or "Father".


The question of "He" can get quite complex.
The question of "Father" can actually get maddening.

A lot of the problem has to do with the development of the words before people actually knew the real biology of procreation. The "father" "creates" but does not "carry within" ... (note in many languages "mother" is actually "one who gives birth to" ... as in the case of the term "Mother of God")


I'm talking about how people use these words today... not how they were developed.

We are talking about how people today would object to any idea about changing the "sex" of God. My proposition is simply that the vast majority of Christians think of God as a "man"... and would object to any other classification.

The idea that God has any type of "sex" as we know it is ridiculous to me.
User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Bible Origins -- discussion

Postby jimboston on Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:05 pm

tzor wrote:
jimboston wrote:Catholicism at least has been schizophrenic about the idea of Monotheism... versus the Plurality of "God".

They make a big deal out of the "Holy Trinity"... but then they say there is "One God, Father Almighty".


This is probably not the best place to discuss complicated notions of unity. But I'm always willing to discuss why God is not the BORG.

Total unity without loss of individuality; one on being; three in persons.


Again.

I can accept the idea that some superior "being" could be more than one "person"... but still be one "God".

I don't understand your use of the words "being" and "persons"... they probably aren't the right words.

The English language may not HAVE the right words to explain the concept. Frankly, human brains may not be evolved enough to fully understand the actual "existence" of God (i.e. how "He" exists; His "day-to-day"; His "perception of reality"). Theoretical Physics supposes the idea of additional dimensions... God could exist in these dimensions, He could perceive them. We just would not be able to truly understand this.

My objection to the Trinity is simply that (I feel) the Catholic Church contradicts itself. Maybe they don't... maybe I just don't understand what they are saying. Or maybe they don't do a good job explaining it. I think it's a contradiction.
User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Bible Origins -- discussion

Postby jimboston on Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:10 pm

jgordon1111 wrote:Jim,tzor, again I point out that there is nothing original to Christianity,actual records exist of other religions using a holy trinity, summerian,even Hindu going back 3000+ yrs before Christianity existed.again my point here is learn about the religion you follow, then decide what is right, not just blind faith. Jim,tzor this was not exactly pointed at you at least you seem willing to discuss with clarity rather than just using erroneous dogma to push a agenda that is counter productive to rationality.


I don't "follow" Christianity.

I was indoctrinated into Catholicism as a child.

I think several people (including myself) have stated that many Old Testament stories are copied from other religions.

This is a quote of mine from the first page of this thread..
"Bible Old Testament - Copied from previous religions... fiction."

You can object to the "fiction" part or not, that's my opinion.
The first part is fact.
User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Bible Origins -- discussion

Postby jimboston on Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:11 pm

tzor wrote:
jgordon1111 wrote:Jim,tzor, again I point out that there is nothing original to Christianity,actual records exist of other religions using a holy trinity, summerian,even Hindu going back 3000+ yrs before Christianity existed.


But the number is actually the least important part of the trinity. There are a lot of things that on the surface looks like Christian notions; gods having strange bizarre sex with women to have children, gods merging together to form a unified deity, and so forth. There are even attempts of mortals to become god as well (they generally end in failure).

But Christianity only sees this as the details of a much larger and somewhat unique theme. God became one with man so that man can become one with God. The first element of this is through "Jesus," begotten, not made, one in being with the Father, became man. Through his unique high priesthood he returns to the Father to send the spirit of God on the believers, bringing them closer to both himself and the father. We can see this vision through the writings of Paul who was first introduced to Christianity by the vision where he told by Jesus, "why are you persecuting me?" He wasn't, because Jesus had been crucified years ago, but he was persecuting his followers at the time. This is the same argument that John uses in his letters where he says at the end of time we will be like him because we will see him as he is.

I may be wrong but I generally don't see this in other religions; the notion of God coming to us to bring us to Him. There is the notion of God "married" to his people, but this never had the full implication of the Genesis account of the creation of Eve being the model of marriage where the two become "one flesh."


This is all Dogma.
User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Bible Origins -- discussion

Postby jimboston on Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:26 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
jgordon1111 wrote:Jim,tzor, again I point out that there is nothing original to Christianity,actual records exist of other religions using a holy trinity, summerian,even Hindu going back 3000+ yrs before Christianity existed.again my point here is learn about the religion you follow, then decide what is right, not just blind faith. Jim,tzor this was not exactly pointed at you at least you seem willing to discuss with clarity rather than just using erroneous dogma to push a agenda that is counter productive to rationality.


I see, so its surprising that versions of truth pervade throughout many cultures? This is not proof that any one is either wrong or correct. I could be said to prove that they all hint toward truth or it could be said that they are all just based on basic human ideas and concepts. It is just not an argument either way.


So all religions are "right"?

It is an argument against the Bible being the "Word of God".

If I put together a book, and tell people it's "God's Word, because I was Divinely Inspired"; and then later you find out that someone else wrote the same stuff before me. What does that make you think? It makes me think that the person who claimed to be "Divinely Inspired" really just copied the stories from the previous author. Especially if these other stories were from the same general area of the World; so communication surely occurred, That is the most logical conclusion.

"We balance probabilities and choose the most likely. It is the scientific use of the imagination."
- Sherlock Holmes

So what's "more likely"... is it more likely that one author copied from another; or is more probable that many people were divinely inspired by a sky wizard, who chose to explain himself in mostly allegorical terms?
User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Bible Origins -- discussion

Postby jimboston on Tue Nov 10, 2015 9:09 pm

Player...

I started replying to you line-by-line... but find I'm just repeating myself.

I also find you to be JUST TOO STUPID to get half of what I write.
So I'm not going to waste my time on the whole thing. Just a few points...

PLAYER57832 wrote:I believe parts of the Bible are witness accounts. You do not.


I don't think that "magic stuff" was written by witnesses.

Some crap may have been written by witnesses or by the people the Bible claims wrote it... but virtually none of that involves the "magic stuff". You can claim there is historical evidence to support your belief, but you're wrong.

Re: Changing Bible

If the original Bible was the "Word of God"... and this writing was changed (translation errors, doctrine changes, imperial mandates, whatever) then how can I believe the "new" modified Bible is also the "Word of God".
How can the "Word of God" be changed by man????

If the Bible has never been modified... then there would only be one version. The FACT that there are multiple disputed versions is 100% proof that the Bible has changed. Since there are multiple versions; how can I (or anyone) grab one version and claim "This here is the Right One?"

There is no escaping this logical argument.

PLAYER57832 wrote: We believe that the important parts do come through. There are details that have been mistranslated or that even have to be altered to fit understanding in a particular culture.


So here you are saying that it's ok to "kinda" change the "Word of God"... so long as we don't change the meaning?

So answer this... if you acknowledge the book has changed over time, how can we be sure these have not been "material" changes? Do you (does anyone) have access to the original????

PLAYER57832 wrote: The church is not the Bible. The church is people who are fully fallible. Even the Roman Catholic Church admits that its Popes can and have sinned.


So if the Church is "people who are fallible"... why should I (or anyone) be part of any Church, or let anyone else interpret the Bible for me? What makes me think that someone else's interpretation is any better than mine???

If you accept the premise that my interpretation is just as valid as anyone else's... why not extend that to the whole concept??? Why is the Christian Bible (written by people who are fallible) any more valid than the Koran (also written by people who are fallible)???

PLAYER57832 wrote:
jimboston wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:People have changed, as people change our view of the words written varies.


The fact that our idea of "GOD" has evolved is kinda proof that the God of the (Christian) Bible isn't really accurate.


No, it is not, though you can believe as you wish.


So our understand evolves... so our understanding of God is better than it was 1000 years ago?

If no, then you are contradicting yourself.

If yes, that means that means our understanding of God today is wrong, and it's just going to take us another 1000 years to be right.

...but 1000 years after that our understanding will be even better, so even our understanding 1000 years from now will be wrong.

In that case... we are REALLY REALLY WRONG. Maybe we should just through out the concept and try again in a few thousand years. You are a barrel full of contradictions!
User avatar
Private 1st Class jimboston
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Boston (Area), Massachusetts; U.S.A.

Re: Bible Origins -- discussion

Postby warmonger1981 on Tue Nov 10, 2015 10:07 pm

God as a male figure could represent a spiritual understanding. Or maybe an understanding of knowledge. God is depicted as the sun usually. God as a woman could represent nature since nature is life giving. The moon often depicts God as feminine.

Albert Mackey wrote: In a phallic sense, when the sun has been in conjunction with the moon, he only leaves Luna after impregnation, and as Forlong, in his Rivers of Life, expresses it, "the young sun is that faint globe we so often see in the arms of the new moon," which is in gestation with the sun.

Albert Pike wrote: Wisdom, or the Intellectual Generative Energy, and Understanding, or the Capacity to be impregnated by the Active Energy and produce intellection or thought, are represented symbolically in the Kabalah as male and female. So also are Justice and Mercy. Strength is the intellectual Energy or Activity; Establishment or Stability is the intellectual Capacity to produce, a passivity. They are the POWER of generation and the CAPACITY of production. By WISDOM, it is said, God creates, and by UNDERSTANDING establishes. These are the two Columns of the Temple, contraries like the Man and Woman, like Reason and Faith, Omnipotence and Liberty, Infinite Justice and Infinite Mercy, Absolute Power or Strength to do even what is most unjust and unwise, and Absolute Wisdom that makes it impossible to do it; Right and Duty. They were the columns of the intellectual and moral world, the monumental hieroglyph of the antinomy necessary to the grand law of creation.

There must be for every Force a Resistance to support it, to every light a shadow, for every Royalty a Realm to govern, for every affirmative a negative.

For the Kabalists, Light represents the Active Principle, and Darkness or Shadow is analogous to the Passive Principle. Therefore it was that they made of the Sun and Moon emblems of the two Divine Sexes and the two creative forces; therefore, that they ascribed to woman the Temptation and the first sin, and then the first labor, the maternal labor of the redemption, because it is from the bosom of the darkness itself that we see the Light born again. The Void attracts the Full; and so it is that the abyss of poverty and misery, the Seeming Evil, the seeming empty nothingness of life, the temporary rebellion of the creatures, eternally attracts the overflowing ocean of being, of riches, of pity, and of love. Christ completed the Atonement on the Cross by descending into Hell.

Justice and Mercy are contraries. If each be infinite, their co-existence seems impossible, and being equal, one cannot even annihilate the other and reign alone. The mysteries of the Divine Nature are beyond our finite comprehension; but so indeed are the mysteries of our own finite nature; and it is certain that in all nature harmony and movement are the result of the equilibrium of opposing or contrary forces.

The analogy of contraries gives the solution of the most interesting and most difficult problem of modern philosophy,--the definite and permanent accord of Reason and Faith, of Authority and Liberty of examination, of Science and Belief, of Perfection in God and Imperfection in Man. If science or knowledge is the Sun, Belief is the Man; it is a reflection of the day in the night. Faith is the veiled Isis, the Supplement of Reason, in the shadows which precede or follow Reason. It emanates from the Reason, but can never confound it nor be confounded with it. The encroachments of Reason upon Faith, or of Faith on Reason, are eclipses of the Sun or Moon; when they occur, they make useless both the Source of Light and its reflection, at once.
User avatar
Captain warmonger1981
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: ST.PAUL

Re: Bible Origins -- discussion

Postby TA1LGUNN3R on Tue Nov 10, 2015 10:28 pm

If God is a male, I wonder how he jerks off. Actually, I kinda wonder the same thing if God is a female.

-TG
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class TA1LGUNN3R
 
Posts: 2699
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:52 am
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue

Re: Bible Origins -- discussion

Postby Dukasaur on Tue Nov 10, 2015 10:33 pm

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:If God is a male, I wonder how he jerks off. Actually, I kinda wonder the same thing if God is a female.

-TG

You've never heard of the Milky Way?
“‎Life is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.”
― Voltaire
User avatar
Sergeant Dukasaur
Community Team
Community Team
 
Posts: 28134
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DirtyDishSoap