• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

Religion Christianity: Conceptions and misconceptions

Kaminari said:
It is a nice theory, Tsuyoiki, and certainly at the level of the individual writer, there is some truth to it. But.... the individual writer's intention is not at issue. What matters is, what does the Bible have to say about a given issue, or, what is God's message on a given issue. (We don't have any apostles or prophets currently available who can present the requisite bonafides, so we are stuck with an examination of the Bible to determine what God's opinions are.)
Click to expand...
This could be the problem that understanding where you are coming from and where others are coming from. I do not believe in a God, so to me the Bible is human text written by humans and is bound by the morals and sensiblities of the people who wrote it. To me the persons intentions are important. We do not need a so called voice of God ie: a prophet or apostle, to tell us what it means. To me their point of view is as valid as mine. I take it you do believe in God and the Bible as its word given to man.
 
The documentary theory holds the most plausibility, and that would have had four writer writing the Pentatauch (sp?), and one redactor. This would of course acoount for the doublets and triplets within the first five books of the Bible, and the different writing styles. That would also have put the time of writing after the time of King Solomon.

Now looking at the faith of Zorostrianism, the similarities between the two religions is astounding. One God, Angels and Demons, Judgement Day, a Savior, and so many of the purification laws, clean and unclean foods, laws concering women and periods, the law against homosexuality, they are all found within the holy books of Zorostrianism. One theory would have had the Jews converted to the state religion of Persia, during the time the Jews were under Persian rule. Ezra is said to have been reading froma book that no one else could read from. There most likely were people who could read both Hebrew and Aramaic in Israel, but what of the language the books of Zorostrianism was written in?
 
Certainly a person's belief in God and in the role of a sacred text will affect how that text is viewed and interpreted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doc
sabro said:
Certainly a person's belief in God and in the role of a sacred text will affect how that text is viewed and interpreted.
Click to expand...

Sabro has hit the nail on the head there. Take the Book of Deuteronomy for example. The ancient belief is that it was written by Moses, however, if you actually read between the lines of the Book of Deuteronomy there are blatant and obvious points that show that it was written much later during the times of the Assyrian conquest. Unlike today with our copyright laws and various other forms of identity protection, the Hebrews at that time did not have a concept of those things, nor did they believe in them. Therefore, it was possible for anybody to write a book in the words of someone else to explain or encourage their religious faith. The Book of Deuteronomy was written by a piest Hebrew who wanted to explain the fall of Samaria, why it happened, and what the Hebrews (they were not considered Jews until the Babylonian Exile) could do to prevent it with Jerusalem by following God?fs law told all in the eyes of Moses. However, many people still think that it was written by Moses (actually that all five books were written by Moses, but that is complete nonsense as the book of Exodus did not come until the 950s BC and the other books did not come until the 550s BC). It just goes to show as Sabro pointed out that it is a person?fs belief in God and their religion that can affect their interpretation of sacred text (you could also say ignorance in certain cases as well).

Great job pointing that one out Sabro!:cool:

Doc :wave:
 
Kaminari said:
It is a nice theory, Tsuyoiki, and certainly at the level of the individual writer, there is some truth to it. But.... the individual writer's intention is not at issue. What matters is, what does the Bible have to say about a given issue, or, what is God's message on a given issue. (We don't have any apostles or prophets currently available who can present the requisite bonafides, so we are stuck with an examination of the Bible to determine what God's opinions are.)
Click to expand...
I think everyone has more or less dealt with most of your points, but I just want to pick up on this idea that there are no prophets today, and that we have to rely on the Bible to know God's message. That is a viewpoint I cannot countenance. Since I personally don't believe in this god, I would have to phrase it as "know how to live a moral life", which is the closest I can come to "know how God wants us to live". I just cannot accept that we have to rely solely on the Bible for this.

There are prophets alive today, and by 'prophet' I mean someone who can show us a good example, or give us good advice about how to live a moral life. I cannot believe that we live in an age of such spiritual poverty that there is no-one we can look to today to help us know how to live. Living a moral life is so important, that we have to look everywhere to learn how to do it. Yes, there are lessons in the Bible (particularly the NT), but there are equally important and sometimes better lessons in all kinds of individuals from Buddha, through Socrates, Seneca, Mill, Nietzsche, Gandhi, Russell and the Dalai Lama - and even people like Michael Moore, that guy who took on MacDonalds, and the old lady next door who volunteers in Oxfam.
 
Ah now, but I didn't say we don't have apostles or prophets today.
We don't have any apostles or prophets currently available who can present the requisite bonafides
Click to expand...

Hmmm.... I see .... Right, OK (and apologies for jumping to conclusions about others' belief systems here)

I meant by that post:
In the absence of someone who can demonstrate that he or she is a bonafide official of God, the only way that we can determine the meanings of the contents of the Bible is to check it out for ourselves. (and I think it safe to say that from the point of view of someone who does not believe in God, the absence of such a person is a given.)

So then:
A says something that means perhaps a,b,c
B says something that means perhaps a,b,d
C says something that means perhaps b,f,g
D says something that beyond doubt means b
If each of these was a university professor, well versed in the same subject and addressing the same issue with regard to that subject, would it be reasonable to assume that each meant his comment to be understood as meaning b? (assuming they are known to be substantially in agreement on the issue in question, that is.)
 
The documentary theory holds the most plausibility, and that would have had four writer writing the Pentatauch (sp?), and one redactor. This would of course acoount for the doublets and triplets within the first five books of the Bible, and the different writing styles.
Click to expand...
With that I would have to substantially agree. The evidence is substantial - and that includes the internal evidence from the books for at least a few authors. Pentateuch is spelt correctly, the Greek name for the first five books of the Old Testament.

That would also have put the time of writing after the time of King Solomon.
Click to expand...
Are you able to supply a source for that one? The laws contained within the five books were beyond doubt in force before the time of Saul.

As to the claims regarding the Hebrew borrowing of traditions from other religions, (I am surprised that no-one has yet claimed that the Hebrews thieved some of their traditions from the native American concepts of the Great Spirit), the opposite claim is also floated with equal regularity. That is - other religions borrowed pieces from the Hebrew oral traditions before they were regularised in the written works. Given that the Hebrews were rather broadly scattered, that possibility can't be discounted. As matters stand, there is no substantive evidence for any of the claims on either side.
 
Hi Kaminari - sorry for misinterpreting your comment about prophets :sorry:

As for this:
Kaminari said:
A says something that means perhaps a,b,c
B says something that means perhaps a,b,d
C says something that means perhaps b,f,g
D says something that beyond doubt means b
If each of these was a university professor, well versed in the same subject and addressing the same issue with regard to that subject, would it be reasonable to assume that each meant his comment to be understood as meaning b? (assuming they are known to be substantially in agreement on the issue in question, that is.)
Click to expand...
Except for D we can't be certain about what each writer's intentions were - and who says what D meant is beyond doubt? Reasonable assumption is not enough. If we could be confident of the intentions of the writers there would be general agreement. Since there are many different interpretations that are currently believed by different experts in the field, the intentions obviously aren't clear. But the debate is healthy and should be encouraged. Compare with Plato's Republic, for example, which is another book that suggests a 'good' way for us to live. Scholars disagree about Plato's intentions, and this has generated good debate, which can only enrich the experience of anyone reading Plato.
 
Plato is one that I am not particularly fond of. Cicero now, or even better, Plutarch...aye.
 
Well, they all have good bits and bad bits, same with the Bible. :p Personally, I like the German philosophers - yes, even Nietzsche :gomen: :blush:
 
All lot of interesting dialog and discussion has gone down in the time that I have kept an eye on the flow, but have not been in a position to post--too much to do at the uni and home.

I'm still in the search mode on that one quote (post#245), and it may take some time. It is of course true that the aplogetics were in dialog with non-Christians, and there could have been some thing from there along those lines, but what was perhaps more suspicious about that, was the which text it would be in, and the when. There appear to be a number of things left that cannot really be dated so closely, even the texts attributed to Tatian.

I have not yet come across any clearly expressed statements among the sub-Apostolic Fathers that admit to any concept of trinity as in the later (late middle 2nd onward) works. (and there is some doubt on the validity of some quotes that come through later works such as Irenaeus (c.130-200),Eusebius (c.260-340), and some others. [A Critical and Exigetical Commentary on The Gospel According to Saint Matthew by W. D. Davies, F.B.A. Vol. ]

And, of course other than the fourth Gospel, there is none in the NT text as best the 'original' text can be determined. It apppears that it could be argued that the work attributed to a number of bishops along with John, the apostle, and his brother Andrew (Muratorian Fragment) shows some possible signs of bending and even possibly some degree of influence by Gnosticism or, even, Docetism. (Genre Bending in the Fouth Gospel by Harold W. Attridge; Journal of biblical Literature Vol. 121, No.1; p7) This could explain the tendency in 'According to John' to delve into a deeper sense of mysticism; which could imply a degree of Syric influence, which in turn could also draw connection to Tatian.

I'd suggest that it would likely be of little consequence to spend to much effort in debatting how wording in most obviously non-original autograph, or even archtype sections of NT text gives meaning to presently held church dogma. Mark's long ending was most clearly not part of the original nor even of the first copies of such. I would argue in favor of Tsuyoiko's #227 (p10) view of John 1:14 (in context), and agree with Kaminari's fine question, of just what the true idea behind it was--#245 (p.10)

There's more, but later. . . See you all all!! :wave:
 
An Offer for Dialog with Pararousia

Dear Pararousia san

It all kind of got started back in August on the 'Missionaries in Japan' thread. Buntaro had made a statement about 'certain questions' which fundamentalists hated--according to him--to which you asked to see some of those questions in your #162 post on page 7 of that thread. I gave a gist of what some of them may be (#163) going into a little more detail in my #180, p 8, after you had quoted some from Romans and John. That's kind of where it got going off topic, so that Mycernius opened this one with you and me in mind, as the introduction first states.

A lot has happened since then, I know. Now, I am offering to open communication with you again, on the details of this subject, if you are willing--it's up to you. I posted this here rather than PM to make my desires known. If you read this,even, feel free to contact me by PM. It is my hope for a level-headed and open-minded discussion, with carefully thought out argumentation, mixed with patience. I hope to hear from you. Mars Man :wave:
 
Hi Marsy,

Interesting idea but I have already stated the basis of all my beliefs here in this thread Origins of Grace.

If there are individuals in the forum who are sincere seekers of truth, I would be willing to take part in a discussion of questions with them. But I am able to state my position on any one subject in a single post usually--not 100+ posts. It is unfair to think most people want to wade through so much verbal diarrhea to get someone's point.

The Bible says arguing with a foolish man is foolishness itself and that a man who doesn't believe in God is a fool. All of creation points to the fact of a Creator-God--only the hard-hearted cannot see that.

And, yes, I believe the Bible, Old and New Testaments, are the God-breathed word revealed to man in the original autographs handed down through the ages to us today without historic error and very few manuscript errors, none of which affect our doctrine. See how easy that was? One sentence! And nothing in the preceding 200+ posts has swayed my mind or heart from faith in God's Word.

It is good, however, to ask yourself why you don't see it as such. It may be because you simply refuse by hardening your heart but if you are willing, pray and ask the God of the Bible to reveal Himself to you. He will if you will.

Happy Thanksgiving.
 
Pararousia- like me, you are reading this through a "God filter" and viewing the world through God colored glasses. We can keep looking and trying to grasp- but that "truth" will always alude us. Our basic premise of God will continue to provide us with truth to fill in those gaps, to answer the unanswered questions, to meet the needs of a hungry homosapien mind.
 
Pararousia said:
The Bible says arguing with a foolish man is foolishness itself and that a man who doesn't believe in God is a fool. All of creation points to the fact of a Creator-God--only the hard-hearted cannot see that.
Click to expand...
Then I am a fool and will remain so. I can just as easily argue that all the universe reveals that Fact there is no God. It is no good debating the fact whether or not it exists with two very opposing views. I see no evidence what so ever to back the fact there is any God, Gods or Goddesses. Meanwhile you see everything to prove the fact there is a god. Your view is just a valid as mine. The only time we will definetly find out if one is right and the other is wrong is when we die. Only the dead know the truth, and they aren't saying much
 
Pararousia said:
The Bible says arguing with a foolish man is foolishness itself and that a man who doesn't believe in God is a fool. All of creation points to the fact of a Creator-God--only the hard-hearted cannot see that.
Click to expand...
That's name-calling. IMO it's not fair to call Mars Man hard-hearted just because he doesn't agree with you. If anything I would argue that he is the most kind-hearted person I have come across on this forum (sorry if I embarrassed you Onii-san!).

As Shakespeare said, "Wise enough to be the fool".
 
Pararousia said:
The Bible says [...] that a man who doesn't believe in God is a fool. [...]
I believe the Bible, Old and New Testaments, are the God-breathed word
Click to expand...
Then, essentially you're saying every one of us non-believers is a fool. & in how far would such a stance open anyone's mind up to ideas of Christianity, in your opinion?
 
Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours, Pararousia !! and all !!

Thanks for taking the time to answer to my offer Pararousia, I'm glad that you took it serious enough to do that, honestly, and this is without any cynicism at all !!

I haven't looked at the 'Origins of Grace' thread in a long time, and can't recall what's there, I'll check it out again.

Pararousia san, I affirm that I am a seeker of truth, I honestly am, and that is why I even bothered to question my once dearly held religious up-bringing-born and later taught understandings in the first place. I stumbled on them while studying with the purpose of strenghtening my faith as it was...and here I am. Now, I am not blind as to why you do not want to accept what I am saying as being the truthful fact, when I say that I am a 'truth-seeker'. But seriously, do you really, way down in your heart, feel and reason that to be a 'truth-seeker' one can choose to willfully close down 'search and free inquiry'? I, Pararousia, am truthfully, a true truth-seeker.

The fact is, that a man wrote down those claims you gave there, Pararousia, on documents which were later included in a canon of religious writings, which, in turn became part of a book which we today, in Christendom call, The Bible. As much as it is true that a human penned those words, it is true that to validate any claim that the source for those words had been anything other than merely human, requires a lot of meticulous research and composition. This is a well proven fact, Pararousia, and I am being reasonable, honest, and fair here. It's a simple truism on the complexity of the issue and field.

That there is historic error in the Bible is a fact, my down-home Southern sister; why can you not see it? And I am not talking only about 'seeing it' in the several posts I made supporting that aggregate conclusion, but, in the many other very obvious places that historical accounts given in one place fully disagree with others; in the teachings of the letters by those taking the lead then, which the test of time has proven false.

Realistically, now, Pararousia, it is notas easy as writing a single sentence, as if to solely further harden ones determination to strengthen what they already believe. That is clearly self-fulfillment and nothing more. One has to deliberate the content of the statement as exhaustively as possible--if one were to think that life and death depended on it especially.

So, Pararousia, I would like to talk about it and discuss it in a reasonable, honest, truthful, and fair manner; open-mindedly. Of course I know how you reason and believe, for the most part, but I have ample evidence that says that you are in error. Would you not be willing and eager to carry on discussion so as to precisely clarify just how it is that the greater portion of facts underlying this topic most reasonably, honestly, and fairly uphold your position? This is what I am offering you, the chance to 'bring me back to Christ', if in fact, you are actually of that mind, and wish to do it correctly--no magical one-sentence claims with a 'and that's that' summary, however--you have to provide the evidence, the arguments, completely. (by 'completely' I mean that if there is error in the facts and arguments made, those will firstly have to be cleared)

The ball is in your court, Pararousia. I wait patiently, with no ill in mind at all.

(No sweat at all lil sis of the red dust of home, Tsuyoiko)
 
While some of Mars Man's posts are a bit beyond me, given some of the obvious points of contention between the gospels concerning the very same events, there would obviously have to be a few historical errors, as both narratives simply can't be correct, although the contradictions that I see do not take away from the overall message of the gospels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top