Religion Christianity: Conceptions and misconceptions

[Mycernius]

It is difficult - not particularly long, but certainly boring in places. An easier book on a similar theme is Dante's Divine Comedy - it is much more readable but very, very long

Dantes Divine Comedy is something I have read. Some of the text is quite humourous especially in Inferno, where he really gets to have a go at various Popes and figure in authority. I read it during my tacho breaks whilst driving.

"Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven."

(Sorry - can't resist sticking my nose in where not needed! )

Keep sticking it in.

 

[No-name]

Just got home, tried to take in the whole thread, ....very interesting... I'll have to re-read after my brain settles down from the long drive. (1700 miles).

3 things:

What you believe about the Bible and how it is interpreted have a great deal to do with what you believe the nature of God is. If he is fictional, or if he just spins galaxies off and watches passively what happens, your interpretation will be different than if you believe in an active and involved God.

Mars man- I am totally at the mercy of translators and footnote writers- so please explain...The passages in Genesis about creation Gen. 1:26 and 5:1-2 (In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female created he them What should it say? (And what was the point?)

Milton was awesome- He had to write this grand drama without making the anti-hero look heroic. But it's hard not to like the never say die quality Satan displays in defeat.
The nature of Angels- the difference in will for example- and why there is no redemption offered to them is interesting too.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Sorry, both these comments are somewhat offtopic.

Dantes Divine Comedy is something I have read. Some of the text is quite humourous especially in Inferno, where he really gets to have a go at various Popes and figure in authority. I read it during my tacho breaks whilst driving.

I liked Inferno too - I wondered if it said something about me that I liked Hell better than Heaven! What did you think of the gory bits? I was surprised how graphic they were.

Milton was awesome- He had to write this grand drama without making the anti-hero look heroic. But it's hard not to like the never say die quality Satan displays in defeat.
The nature of Angels- the difference in will for example- and why there is no redemption offered to them is interesting too.

I thought Satan was heroic. That is more or less what I was referring to when I said I came to the opposite conclusion to what Milton intended. I thought his machines were cool too!

 

[Mycernius]

I wouldn't say they are completely off topic. These books have contributed to the Christian faith. Most people who call themselves Christian would have their views of heaven and hell shaped by books like this, not just the Bible.

I wonder, do protestants miss out purgatory when they read The Divine Comedy?

I'm going to have to get and read Paradise Lost now. kashii: You have intrigued me

 

[Kinsao]

I, too, think I preferred the "wrong" side in Paradise Lost... :evil: I have never read the Divine Comedy though... *puts on long list of 'books I need to read'*

I feel out of my depth in discussions about the Bible. I don't know anything about the history of it and especially all the linguistic stuff. :bluush: I can remember bits from it, and the sort of general tenor, but for quoting chapter and verse I am lost! :sorry:

The Mosaic Law was a real law. It was written, most obviously, to be followed to the dot. There is very little room for symbolism. When it states that a women must bring a sin offering because of menstration, the actual historical woman had to do just that. When it demanded that when a male were caught laying with a male, that the both of them were to be killed without fail, it meant every single stupid, ignorant word of it. So you see, Kinsao, this is not and was not symbolism.

My impression is, that the Mosaic Law is/was (?) as you say, a real law. But that's not to confuse the Mosaic Law itself with the whole collection of writings that we call the OT. In fact, some of this was written about dreams, symbolisms, poetry, etc. But, yes I agree that the laws by which people were expected to live in those times were 'real'. They were also very strict and what seems to our eyes now as many times illogical, unreasonable, restrictive and often cruel.

So, I think that people who quote bits out of OT as basis for behaviours now are very often barking up completely the wrong tree and just thinking that something "out of the Bible" can give them some kind of validation for their point of view.

In my view, the NT changes the perspective. Because, at the time Jesus was living, the OT would be the book - "book of rules" if you like - that people were living by. Their law, their holy scriptures, type of thing. So, knowing of the OT gives a background to the culture in which Jesus was living. But (I'm only going by what I can sense from the texts), he changed that. He was saying something like: Hold on, it's not OK to behave like that. He didn't say to change the real basic basics of the "law" (which I guess you could say were the Ten Commandments), he didn't suddenly say wrong is right and vice versa. But, he seemed to strip away the stupid peripheral stuff that closed people's eyes and made them make these cruel laws...

There is of course the very famous example that the woman had committed adultery and Jesus said for the person who had never committed any sin be the person to throw the first stone. So it seems to me that he was saying not to judge other people because it's hypocritical because everyone does things "wrong" (I'm not going to argue about that word! :sorry: ). So, I think that changes things, for a more tolerant attitude... people should have been looking at themselves before condemning other people. And how people can be sorry when they did something wrong, too...

Well, of course it's a lot more complicated than that, I'm not very good at saying it. I'm not even sure what I'm trying to say... :bluush: :clueless: ... but it is Monday..... :kanashii:

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I think it would be enough for Jesus if we are living a good life, being kind to people, not exploiting others etc. I don't think he was so shallow that he would care whether we worship him - he just saw a good way to live, and would want us all to live that way. And I think we should try, because what he taught was good - and not different in spirit from what other good people have said throughout history. It all boils down to 'be nice to people', and who could disagree with that?

 

[Pararousia]

I would

I think it would be enough for Jesus if we are living a good life, being kind to people, not exploiting others etc. I don't think he was so shallow that he would care whether we worship him - he just saw a good way to live, and would want us all to live that way. And I think we should try, because what he taught was good - and not different in spirit from what other good people have said throughout history. It all boils down to 'be nice to people', and who could disagree with that?

Tsuyoiko, Jesus claimed to be and was God in the flesh. He was neither shallow nor egotistical. He was neither a liar nor a lunatic. He said, "I am the Way, the Truth, the Life. No man comes to the Father but by Me." The old testament scriptures foretold His coming. Way back in Genesis, the Scriptures declare that without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. The Father declared that He demostrated His love for us by sending Himself made into human flesh as we are to show us not only an example of how to live, but to be an eternal sacrifice for our sins, to all who will believe.

For God didn't send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Every one who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that this deeds will be exposed. But whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

 

[Revenant]

Tsuyoiko, Jesus claimed to be and was God in the flesh. He was neither shallow nor egotistical. He was neither a liar nor a lunatic. He said, "I am the Way, the Truth, the Life. No man comes to the Father but by Me."

Some Biblical scholars have claimed they have proven Jesus never claimed to be a deity in the flesh. I read part of the arguement, and it seems to go back to the original translastions for proof of this. I'll look that up sometime.

Other famous religious figures have said similar things. I believe Buddha was one, but he never claimed to be a God.

For God didn't send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Every one who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that this deeds will be exposed. But whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

But I guess that would come down to a definition of what is evil. Evil to me would be the absence of active empathy, for my argument goes that morality is built on empathy. Even most Christians would break one of the commandments were the consequences better than following the commandment.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Hi Pararousia! Nice to see you here! :wave:

Tsuyoiko, Jesus claimed to be and was God in the flesh. He was neither shallow nor egotistical.

I agree that Jesus was neither shallow (as I said in my previous post) nor egotistical. But I think the jury is still out as to whether he claimed to be god. I would agree that he actually was god, but that's because of what I believe about the nature of god - and I think it applies to every one of us.

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Every one who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that this deeds will be exposed.

There are many good non-Christians and many bad Christians. What do you mean by 'the light'? Are you saying that anyone who will not accept 'the light' is evil? If someone is not good, does that make them evil? :?

 

[Mycernius]

It strikes me that someone somewhere has misquoted or misheard something that Jesus said. Thus Christians make him out to be a deity of some kind. Being a monothesitic faith he could have only been an aspect of God, not a seperate deity. IMHO he was a man who thought that Judaism needed change and ended up suffering the conseqences for his actions. He is seen as only a man by Muslims and Jews. Only Christians have rasied him to Godhood and appear to be the only current religion to have raised its founder to that status (I could be wrong here. Correct me). Why is this? Is it because his followers witnessed miracles or because of his martyrdoom and death or other reasons? As Mars Man said

I'd say--there are four individual witnesses to the Gospel story, and they all differ in major ways,

It seems that from differing stories you get a problem of "chinese whispers" and that can create things finally being written down as truth, when, in reality, they were never said that way.

 

[Void]

It strikes me that someone somewhere has misquoted or misheard something that Jesus said. Thus Christians make him out to be a deity of some kind. Being a monothesitic faith he could have only been an aspect of God, not a seperate deity. IMHO he was a man who thought that Judaism needed change and ended up suffering the conseqences for his actions. He is seen as only a man by Muslims and Jews. Only Christians have rasied him to Godhood and appear to be the only current religion to have raised its founder to that status (I could be wrong here. Correct me).

what about Krishna (sp)? :?

 

[bossel]

Only Christians have rasied him to Godhood and appear to be the only current religion to have raised its founder to that status (I could be wrong here. Correct me).

I think, just as there are Christian who don't believe in Jesus being God, there are Buddhists who believe in Buddha as a god.

 

[Mars Man]

HI again everyone !! :wave:

CORRECTION: pg.1, my post #16 should read: . . .which only goes to show that the stories do not form one single. . .

Sabro, Hi there. I apologize for not going back to check the whole context, but I think this question on Gen. 1:26, etc. came from a post I had made in a different thread wherein I'd pointed out a problem in some modern colloquial translations. Some readings make it look like the original emcompassed female more than it really did. Vs. 27 summarizes with both male and female. Verse 26 doesn't use the definite article, so could be rendered 'man' as a collective noun, but verse 27 uses the definite article, casting some understanding over verse 26 as well. Although it is reasoned that we have more than one collection of older writings here (P vs J, etc.--also see Gen. 2:4,5:1,6:9, etc.) the story in Gen. 2:4-20 gives clear indication of intent within later scribal tendencies. But my point was that we have to check translations carefully to keep from getting wrong impressions, differing from contextual and original tongue intentions.

Since the OT was not one single volume in the minds of even first century Christians, it is important to keep that clearly in mind. The most symbolic works among OT canon are those of Daniel and Ezekiel--though not limited to these. Most of it is by far historical. You do have a good point about misuse of quotes from the different writings that form that canon, no one should do it--and yet Paul (whose works make most of the NT) was guilty of doing just that ! (Hebrews 1:6; Eph.4:8; Ro. 10:7) Proverbs are almost totally universal and timeless; they can easily cross culture and time. Songs (Psalms) are mostly historical in that they record historical events, feelings, and conceptions of those who composed them. The emotions shown in them are of course universal and timeless because we all have emotions and the human psyche has changed probably little from that time.

Pararousia, I would hope to have your attention here because this is exactly where I've been coming from. You have quoted John 14:6, as though to say that you know that the historical Jesus had actually said those very words. How can we know that when we do know that we cannot trust John 13:36-38; 18:4-11; 19:14, and others (using the max. three witness rule of thumb here) That has been my entire point--because of the inconsistency of the historical reports, it cannot be known what was truly said and done. The general historicity, to whatever degree, should be considered relatively correct, but the specifics are not reliable. The historical Jesus was very likely highly influenced by the Essene sect, and of course that is reflected in the narratives his followers wrote from the early oral tradition. When I say 'can't trust' above, it is because the other writers have given us different events and words (context) so we can't say which is true history. I have yet to check out the sites you had given earlier, but will do so.

 

[Kinsao]

Just as an aside, it always intrigued me about the four different accounts of Jesus being arrested in the garden, and Peter cuts off the ear of the high priest's servant. Only one of the writers mentions the name of the guy, and only Luke (who was a doctor I believe? :? ) mentions that Jesus then healed it. :souka:

 

[Mycernius]

Only two of the Gospels mention Jesus's birth and they are different.
I thought John was dated to be written at least 100 years after Christ. Hence the different writing style to the other 3 gospels? If so, how can it be taken as an eyewitness account?

 

[Kinsao]

Evidently if it's written 100 years after, it isn't eyewitness account. (Unless they had different systems of counting years or something... :? )

 

[No-name]

100AD, not 100 years after Christ's crucifixion. Only 64 years after the fact. John was an old man.

 

[Kinsao]

Ah - light dawns.... :relief:

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I think the only reliable dates we can accept for the gospels are dates of extant ancient manuscripts. The earliest of these is a papyrus fragment of John xviii, now in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, dated on palaeographical grounds to around AD 130.

The arguments about 'historicity' don't wash with me. Just because someone talks like they know a time doesn't make them an eyewitness. How many people our age can talk about WWII like they know it like the back of their hand? In 2000 years time will someone say, "Well he must have been an eyewitness because his account is accurate?"

 

[Mars Man]

You folks are doing a great job !! This is a nice flow. You all know that I can be so wordy. :gomen:

I would love to know what papyrus that may be in the library there. It' be nice to get a look at. I have learned that there are some 22 papyri that include parts of or all of the book of John. There are also some 30 something uncials. You all may recall my mentioning the Muratorian Fragment (c.170) CE which talks about John's narrative being written by a group of people, not just the aged apostle himself, and also contains their input (non-eyewitness). But in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (110 CE) either the book of John is alluded to, or by great coincidence resembles it, or Ignatius had been in that group who helped write the book.

Luke was a doctor, according to the a prioi assumption that Paul's claim that he was is historically correct. In the introduction to his narrative, he tells one Theophilus, the immediate and direct recpient, that the purpose for writing was to clear up and support the things he had already been told orally. Luke was not an acquaintance of the historical Jesus. His writing is the longest and the more polished.

The work, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol III, p 350 shows that Eusebius quotes Papias (of c. 140) in saying that Mark had been Peter's (the apostle) interpreter, and that he had written down what he had remembered from Peter's talk. Mark had not been an acquaintance of the historical Jesus. That book has many weak places in it, and of course many of you may be familiar with the short and long endings--the short one being the earliest and better attested, thus accepted as being of the original.

Nobody knows who wrote the book of Matthew. It is accepted that it was NOT the apostle Matthew. There are a number of theories about the relationship between Mark and Matthew--how much they may have used the possible Q source, or some other, etc.

In the scholarship I've read and studied, the more generally accepted dates for these writings are within the first century, the book of John being the very last work done. The degree of having the original pennings in our present recensions seems very, very high--but that does not make them any more believable, the understood-original's contents cannot all stand the test of 'reality' check. I hope to post some very concrete examples of Christian misconceptions regarding biblical understanding from time to time starting in the near future. But you dear friends have hit on some good and very accurate points. Here's another quicky, for those of you who do have Bibles and don't mind checking: Just what was written on the board said to have been posted above Jesus' head on the stake? Jn 19:19; Lk 23:38; Mr 15:26; Mt 27:37. It was said to have been written, so, a priori, we can say that it had become history before these narratives had been written, or even before the oral tradition had started, so there can only be one true, historical fact. :wave: