I'll throw a coal into this fire

[turtle]

well...let's see.

First of all, no I don't know "the truth" as you put it! God didn't come down and say "Hey Brian, here's the true interpretation of the Bible". My entire point was that it can be intrepreted in many different ways, and we have no way(while on this earth) to know which is true. We have to take what personal knowledge we have of God, read the Bible critically, yadda yadda and try to get as close as we can.

That's fine. Clears up what you were trying to say. I wasn't clear if you believed some people have the "true interpretation" or what.

Your quotes about Jesus were skewed. Leaving your family if you have a greater calling isn't necessarily a bad thing. Are you going to say there should be no soldiers? Those people have to leave their families to go to war. Second, leaving someone's parents to pursue their real lives is perfectly natural too. Grow up with your parents, leave them to be with your spouse...that's a widely held belief not only by people but also in the Bible.

Are you sure that's what the Bible says, or is that your interpretation?

How many translations and versions of the Bible have you read?

Yes, I am currently reading the Bible through, and I intend to finish the whole thing. I don't know why you think it is so imperitent that I have read it all before I try to post about this though...

It seems to me that if one is going to discuss something, one should know about the thing being discussed.

My mathematical example is still sound as far as I can see.

No, it's not.

If you assume that God exists...which we were doing.

No, it's what YOU are doing. (I am however, for the sake of this discussion, it is certainly not an issue of belief with me.)

Our issue wasn't with his existence at this time but the interpretation thing. So we are assuming he exists. Therefore, there has to be some truth about him, in other words, some correct intrepretation about him, or some fact of sorts.

I get that.

But so far, history has proven that there is no "correct interpretation" -- if there were, there wouldn't be any debates like this going on!

That's the same as 2+2=4, its a sound fact.

2+2=4 is a "sound fact." Interpretations of the Bible, or any religious doctrine, is not.

However, there are many intrepretations, and I don't know which is right, if any, only that there is a truth worth searching for. And I don't think your type of searching is the way to find it.

Not sure who you're posting to here....if you mean me, how do you know what I'm doing?

arthwollipot, I dont' know what is true. I think I touched on this above though...I'm not trying to profess that I know everything...hardly.

While you've addressed this to arthwollipot, I'll respond to this too -- I know that's not what you're professing.

The OT and the NT do have a lot of contradictions with the changes of the times. The OT is a world where God operates and runs freely, influencing people and regulating the sins of humankind. However, in this day and age, he has given us the free will to make of our lives what we will. Our judgment awaits, though just at a different time.

And that is your opinion, your belief, your interpretation.

You are free to hold those, and I am not one to stop you or make laws against you believing such.

But it is ONLY your opinion/faith/belief, and not a fact, and not the "TRUTH."

 

[rppa]

No one disputes there are "some pretty explicit contradictions" in the Bible. But the Bible, the Christian Bible that is, includes both the OT and the NT. You can't reject the OT because it's bothersome. If you say you're a Chrisitan, then you have to grapple with both the OT, and NT.

Except that in the teaching of Jesus which I paraphrased, he actually tells you to reject Old Testament law. Now, if you call yourself a Christian, which presumably means you are trying to be a follower of Christ, why would you turn your back on such an explicit teaching and say, "Yeah I know you said that but I'm told I have to believe all the old laws are infallible, even the ones you told me to throw out."

Remember the Pharisees, who kept trying to trip him up on the basis of Old Testament law? Over and over he's telling his followers, "throw out the Old Testament." Ever read the words that appear in the traditional communion prayer? Again paraphrasing, "you know that old Covenant? Forget that. We're starting over with a new Covenant."

The fact that organized churches tried to shoehorn all the old stuff back in after the founder threw it out, doesn't mean there is some absolute requirement that you MUST go with that policy in order to call yourself a Christian. Historically, right after Jesus' death (if you believe historically there was a Jesus and a death), the people creating the organized religion started distorting the message.

 

[songstress]

Coal!

Brian,

Thanks for giving an alternative view. What you say is food for thought, indeed!

Love,
Patsy.
xxxxx

 

[songstress]

Coal!

Ashles,

Thank goodness I have found someone who agrees with me about so-called 'man made' global warming.

Love,
Patsy.
xxxxxx

 

[Ashles]

Re: Coal!

Ashles,

Thank goodness I have found someone who agrees with me about so-called 'man made' global warming.

Love,
Patsy.
xxxxxx

Erm, huh?

 

[turtle]

Except that in the teaching of Jesus which I paraphrased, he actually tells you to reject Old Testament law. Now, if you call yourself a Christian,

I am not a Christian.

which presumably means you are trying to be a follower of Christ, why would you turn your back on such an explicit teaching and say, "Yeah I know you said that but I'm told I have to believe all the old laws are infallible, even the ones you told me to throw out."

Pointless to discuss this without exact cited passages from the Bible that you are referring to.

Although, while this may be so, it is also so with many other passages on many other subjects. Full of contradictions, OT and NT.

If you could provide specific quotes/passages from text, that would be very helpful.

It'd also be helpful (although a bit tedious, I'm sure) to quote from a couple of different sources, different translations.

Remember the Pharisees, who kept trying to trip him up on the basis of Old Testament law? Over and over he's telling his followers, "throw out the Old Testament." Ever read the words that appear in the traditional communion prayer? Again paraphrasing, "you know that old Covenant? Forget that. We're starting over with a new Covenant."

See above in regards to contradictions.

And then, there' s always the old Christian vs. take over of Jewish law which is a wholeother ballgame!

The fact that organized churches tried to shoehorn all the old stuff back in after the founder threw it out,

What founder? Who do you mean?

doesn't mean there is some absolute requirement that you MUST go with that policy in order to call yourself a Christian. Historically, right after Jesus' death (if you believe historically there was a Jesus and a death), the people creating the organized religion started distorting the message.

LOL, the "distortion" started long before that. As well as after. Anyhoo. . .

 

[turtle]

Except that in the teaching of Jesus which I paraphrased, he actually tells you to reject Old Testament law. Now, if you call yourself a Christian, which presumably means you are trying to be a follower of Christ, why would you turn your back on such an explicit teaching and say, "Yeah I know you said that but I'm told I have to believe all the old laws are infallible, even the ones you told me to throw out."

Remember the Pharisees, who kept trying to trip him up on the basis of Old Testament law? Over and over he's telling his followers, "throw out the Old Testament." Ever read the words that appear in the traditional communion prayer? Again paraphrasing, "you know that old Covenant? Forget that. We're starting over with a new Covenant."

The fact that organized churches tried to shoehorn all the old stuff back in after the founder threw it out, doesn't mean there is some absolute requirement that you MUST go with that policy in order to call yourself a Christian. Historically, right after Jesus' death (if you believe historically there was a Jesus and a death), the people creating the organized religion started distorting the message.

In all of this debate, which is fun and I enjoy it tremendously, I just want to point out a couple of things:

There's the assumption God exists. There's also the assumption that this god is also Jesus. A Christian concept of God.

There's also the assumption that the Bible was "written" by this God -- that is, so divinely inspired that it surpassed man. Man may have been the tool -- the physical writer of such words, but they were not his words, they were words of this divine being. Or, that there were two gods, one who wrote the OT, and a newer, improved version, Jesus, who inspired the NT.

That's a lot of faith going on there. That all the men who wrote the words that appear in the Bible -- OT and NT -- were never once mistaken, misinterpreted, passed off as being divine when they weren't, were never mistranslated, re translated, re re re re re translated, edited, re-edited, etc.

And yet people go beyond using this text as an inspirational guide and insist it's the word of a God. . .

And people here think I'm a woo for believing in ghosts or psi.

 

[rppa]

What founder? Who do you mean?

That would be that guy who the religion was named after, who you're a supposed follower of if you call yourself a Christian. I'm not addressing you personally, but I'm just saying that if you want to be a Christian, I would sort of think the teachings of Christ, as recorded in whatever source available, would be what you follow. As opposed to contradictory doctrinal stuff added by other people a couple of centuries later.

So if there's this guy, and you worship him and think his words are perfect, and he says that we're not supposed to be following the OT anymore, it seems strange to raise the OT to this divine infallible level.

 

[turtle]

That would be that guy who the religion was named after, who you're a supposed follower of if you call yourself a Christian. I'm not addressing you personally, but I'm just saying that if you want to be a Christian, I would sort of think the teachings of Christ, as recorded in whatever source available, would be what you follow. As opposed to contradictory doctrinal stuff added by other people a couple of centuries later.

I see your point, but, first of all, I will remind you, I am not a Christian.

Secondly, it wasn't Jesus Christ who started Christianity -- it was (roughly) various sects of Jews who created a religion based on JC. Big difference there -- JC didn't come along and say "Hey, I'm starting a religion, it's called Christianity, come follow me."

I find it funny that you will not give the same amount of religious faith to the OT because it's full of "contradictory doctrinal stuff" when the NT also is full of "contradictory doctrinal stuff."

You're also assuming that the only time "stuff" was added to the Bible was by "other people a couple of centuries later" but at no other time.

So if there's this guy, and you worship him and think his words are perfect, and he says that we're not supposed to be following the OT anymore, it seems strange to raise the OT to this divine infallible level.

As I said, show some direct quotes from the Bible that illustrate these points.

 

[turtle]

That would be that guy who the religion was named after, who you're a supposed follower of if you call yourself a Christian. I'm not addressing you personally, but I'm just saying that if you want to be a Christian, I would sort of think the teachings of Christ, as recorded in whatever source available, would be what you follow. As opposed to contradictory doctrinal stuff added by other people a couple of centuries later.

So if there's this guy, and you worship him and think his words are perfect, and he says that we're not supposed to be following the OT anymore, it seems strange to raise the OT to this divine infallible level.

I have a question for you: if everyone follows JC and/or the Bible the way it's all supposed to be, why oh why are there so many denominations?

If everyone were in agreement, there would be no need.

Obviously, people are not in agreement.

Why is that I wonder?

 

[rppa]

I see your point, but, first of all, I will remind you, I am not a Christian.

That would be why I said "I'm not addressing you personally".

Secondly, it wasn't Jesus Christ who started Christianity -- it was (roughly) various sects of Jews who created a religion based on JC. Big difference there -- JC didn't come along and say "Hey, I'm starting a religion, it's called Christianity, come follow me."

Yes, you're right. He said "I'm changing the rules for Jews".

I find it funny that you will not give the same amount of religious faith to the OT because it's full of "contradictory doctrinal stuff" when the NT also is full of "contradictory doctrinal stuff."

You misunderstand me. First of all, when I talk about other people coming along a couple of centuries AD and adding contradictory doctrinal stuff, I'm not referring to the OT. I'm no biblical scholar, but I'm pretty sure that nothing in the OT post-dates the Gospels.

What I really had in mind when I said that was such things as the "just war doctrine", and a bunch of stuff added by various popes and church leaders over the centuries for the purposes of the immediate political needs of their time (the ban against priests marrying for instance). On just war, Jesus according to the Gospels was pretty clear: Don't kill people, not even if you think they're bad people and you're doing it for me. So IMO when somebody comes along and says we're going to kill people in the name of Christ, they're committing a boo-boo.

But as a matter of fact, I think the post facto "contradictory doctrinal stuff" starts almost right away in the NT, beginning with the writings of Paul, a guy who I blame for a lot of the ills committed in the name of Christianity.

So where did I leave you with the impression that I give X amount of faith to either OT or NT?

You're also assuming that the only time "stuff" was added to the Bible was by "other people a couple of centuries later" but at no other time.

I think that's reasonable, since that's when the Bible we know was created, at a religious meeting where they kept the Books they liked and threw out a bunch which didn't fit their views. But actually I didn't talk about adding anything to the Bible at all. When I talk about "additional doctrine" I'm talking about doctrine which has been established by church leaders outside of the Bible.

As I said, show some direct quotes from the Bible that illustrate these points.

I'm not sure what points you mean as you appear to be reading the exact opposite of my intended meaning. You may be asking me to defend a "point" which is diametrically opposite to what I've been saying. For instance, you may be asking me to show you a Biblical quote containing a doctrine which I'm saying is extra-Biblical.

Also, all I've been saying is that Biblical literalism seems to be against the teachings of Christ as recorded in the Gospels. Did that come across at all? You seem to have read me as a literalist, or perhaps as a NT literalist.

At any rate I don't have a Bible at hand.

You know that the direct teachings of Christ are, if anywhere, only in the first four books of the NT, right? The other books are other stuff. And even those first four books were written decades after the historical time of Jesus.

 

[Winny]

Except that in the teaching of Jesus which I paraphrased, he actually tells you to reject Old Testament law.

No he doesn't. He tells us to keep the old testament laws, here:

Matthew 5:17-18
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

That's pretty unambiguous.

Therefore, my Christian friends, he is endorsing the law that forces a victim of rape to marry her attacker.

Unfortunately, in other parts of the bible, he also tells us to disregard the old laws (eg Luke 16:16)

This is just one of many, many contradictions within the NT.

Gecko - you have acknowledged that the divine word of the Lord contradicts itself between the OT and the NT. Now you see that it also contradicts itself entirely within the NT. How can you use such a book as any sort of a guide? Can a Christian simply interpret the bible in whatever way he choses? Doesn't this render it a little meaningless?

cheers

Winny

 

[rppa]

I have a question for you: if everyone follows JC and/or the Bible the way it's all supposed to be, why oh why are there so many denominations?

This would be one of those points where you appear to be attributing a viewpoint to me which is diametrically opposite to the one I've actually been trying to say.

For the record: I think almost *NOBODY* is following JC, *including* the authors of the NT, which would make it logically impossible to follow both JC and the Bible, or even the NT, in full.

Edited to add: Living in Pennsylvania now, I run into a lot of Quakers. I often come away from such meetings thinking the Quakers may be the best of us, our highest ideal. They come closer than anybody at following what I believe was the original message.

If everyone were in agreement, there would be no need.

I *really* don't know where I might have implied that everyone was in agreement.

Obviously, people are not in agreement.

Why is that I wonder?

Because they're people, and it's a hard ideal for humans to follow. Much easier to do what you want, kill who you want, and try to convince a majority of your people that God is on your side.

 

[turtle]

I see your point, but, first of all, I will remind you, I am not a Christian.

That would be why I said "I'm not addressing you personally".

Just being clear.

Secondly, it wasn't Jesus Christ who started Christianity -- it was (roughly) various sects of Jews who created a religion based on JC. Big difference there -- JC didn't come along and say "Hey, I'm starting a religion, it's called Christianity, come follow me."

Yes, you're right. He said "I'm changing the rules for Jews".[/B][/QUOTE]

LOL, where does he say that? Please post some direct quotes or passages from the Bible to support these paraphrases of yours.

I find it funny that you will not give the same amount of religious faith to the OT because it's full of "contradictory doctrinal stuff" when the NT also is full of "contradictory doctrinal stuff."

You misunderstand me. First of all, when I talk about other people coming along a couple of centuries AD and adding contradictory doctrinal stuff, I'm not referring to the OT. I'm no biblical scholar, but I'm pretty sure that nothing in the OT post-dates the Gospels.

Oy.

that's not my point.

The Bible, OT, NT, has been written by men, as in , human beings, who say they were divinely inspired by God. That doesn't make it so. The OT, NT ,has also been re translated, edited, and re re re re re re up to this moment in history.

The OT predating the NT has nothing to do with these points.

[/B][/QUOTE] What I really had in mind when I said that was such things as the "just war doctrine", and a bunch of stuff added by various popes and church leaders over the centuries for the purposes of the immediate political needs of their time (the ban against priests marrying for instance). On just war, Jesus according to the Gospels was pretty clear: Don't kill people, not even if you think they're bad people and you're doing it for me. So IMO when somebody comes along and says we're going to kill people in the name of Christ, they're committing a boo-boo.[/B][/QUOTE]

And the NT is immune from such additions, deletions, translations, and editing? See above.

But as a matter of fact, I think the post facto "contradictory doctrinal stuff" starts almost right away in the NT, beginning with the writings of Paul, a guy who I blame for a lot of the ills committed in the name of Christianity.

So where did I leave you with the impression that I give X amount of faith to either OT or NT?

Because you've said you don't put much stock in it. Didn't you?

You're also assuming that the only time "stuff" was added to the Bible was by "other people a couple of centuries later" but at no other time.

I think that's reasonable,

You think, or you know? Are you forming opinions on the history of biblical text on what you think, or what you know?

since that's when the Bible we know was created, at a religious meeting where they kept the Books they liked and threw out a bunch which didn't fit their views. But actually I didn't talk about adding anything to the Bible at all. When I talk about "additional doctrine" I'm talking about doctrine which has been established by church leaders outside of the Bible.

Are you referring the Council of Nicea?

"church leaders outside of the Bible?" WTF? Please explain.

Look, can you understand the fact that the Bible, NT, OT, within a Christian contect, has been, as I've said several times already, translated, mistranslated, edited, messed with, added to, etc. ? Yes or no?



As I said, show some direct quotes from the Bible that illustrate these points.

I'm not sure what points you mean as you appear to be reading the exact opposite of my intended meaning. You may be asking me to defend a "point" which is diametrically opposite to what I've been saying. For instance, you may be asking me to show you a Biblical quote containing a doctrine which I'm saying is extra-Biblical.[/B][/QUOTE]

You keep saying JC said "don't follow the OT" and I'm asking you for a citation. Is that so hard? Little matter if it comes from the NT, OT, or some other source.

I am asking you for the source of your comments.

Also, all I've been saying is that Biblical literalism seems to be against the teachings of Christ as recorded in the Gospels. Did that come across at all? You seem to have read me as a literalist, or perhaps as a NT literalist.

Does anyone see the irony in this?
Biblical literalism is agasint the teachings of Christ -- as recorded in the Gospels! LOL. Sounds literal to me.

At any rate I don't have a Bible at hand.

Go get one then. You're the one making the arguments here, all I'm doing is asking you to support your assertions. You can probably look it up on the net, even.

By the way, what kind of Christian are you? I'm not a Christian, but I have a Bible in my library.

You know that the direct teachings of Christ are, if anywhere, only in the first four books of the NT, right? The other books are other stuff. And even those first four books were written decades after the historical time of Jesus.

Ah. Brings up another point. So, God is Jesus, Jesus is God, right? So what does it matter? Wasn't Jesus as God (pre Jesus God) setting the stage for new, improved Jesus-God in the OT? So all those "other books are other stuff" would be somewhat important, would they not?

And they're not the "direct teachings of Christ" just because some people who said they were are.

 

[turtle]

This would be one of those points where you appear to be attributing a viewpoint to me which is diametrically opposite to the one I've actually been trying to say.

No. This would be a question that I'm asking you out of curiosity.

For the record: I think almost *NOBODY* is following JC, *including* the authors of the NT, which would make it logically impossible to follow both JC and the Bible, or even the NT, in full.

LOL, then why bother?

It is your opinion, your interpretation of what JC, the authors of the NT, OT, whatever-T, etc. 'really meant.'

By the way, if one believes the Bible is the literal word of God/JC, then following "both JC and the Bible" would not be "logically impossible."

Edited to add: Living in Pennsylvania now, I run into a lot of Quakers. I often come away from such meetings thinking the Quakers may be the best of us, our highest ideal. They come closer than anybody at following what I believe was the original message.

I *really* don't know where I might have implied that everyone was in agreement.

I didn't say you did.
I asked you a question.

Because they're people, and it's a hard ideal for humans to follow. Much easier to do what you want, kill who you want, and try to convince a majority of your people that God is on your side.

What's the "ideal?" Seems to be quite elusive. If it weren't, everyone would be in agreement. Simple.

 

[gecko]

*cut*

Gecko - you have acknowledged that the divine word of the Lord contradicts itself between the OT and the NT. Now you see that it also contradicts itself entirely within the NT. How can you use such a book as any sort of a guide? Can a Christian simply interpret the bible in whatever way he choses? Doesn't this render it a little meaningless?

cheers

Winny [/B]

Winny,

Trying to find the truest meaning of the Bible, just like trying to find every little thing we believe, is a process that takes up someone's entire life no doubt. Does it render it meaningless? Hardly. There is a lot of wisdom that can be found in the book, just as there is a lot of ambiguity. That's why I don't read study Bibles...its somebody's interpretation of it. No doubt, to truly understand the word of God wholly, I would want to learn, what is it, Greek? Hebrew? The original language in which the Bible is written. It has undergone many translations.

As you probably know, most people do try to use the Bible in whatever way they see fit. I have heard people defend the most outrageous claims by citing one line from the Bible and taking it at hein sight. I talked about taking the book as a whole, and although I haven't read it all, I think the deepest meanings behind the Bible are clear...need I really paraphrase them? They are the foundations of what a christian is "supposed" to be. Kind, caring, forgiving(that's a big one), compassionate, unafraid, strong, devoted, pure, sanctimonious, whatever. The Bible is a good reference, but basing everything we do on it can be risky.

Brian

 

[rppa]

I find it funny that you will not give the same amount of religious faith to the OT because it's full of "contradictory doctrinal stuff" when the NT also is full of "contradictory doctrinal stuff."



Oy.

that's not my point.

The Bible, OT, NT, has been written by men, as in , human beings, who say they were divinely inspired by God.

Oy. Not mine either. I fully agree. I just thought it was strange when I made a statement about stuff being added centuries AD and you interpreted this as being a statement about the Old Testament.

I am not a literalist.

I am not a literalist.

I am not a literalist.

I am not a literalist.

I am not a literalist.

I am not a literalist.

I've said, in as many ways as I can think of, that the NT, far from being divine, is the work of humans and is deeply flawed.

In addition to your interpretation of "centuries AD" as "OT", I was also trying to point out that when I say "teachings of Christ, as they are recorded in the Gospels", I'm not saying "all of the NT". I'm not having a theological argument with you, just trying to point out that when you read Holy Roman Empire and tell me I'm talking OT, or read Gospels and tell me I'm talking about the NT entirely, you're misreading me.

I'd be having the same argument if I started talking about post Revolutionary America and you told me I was talking about Medieval France, if I was talking about the Beatles and you wanted to know why I was saying those things about George Gershwin.


The OT predating the NT has nothing to do with these points.

Which I wasn't arguing. The OT predating the NT just has to do with the interpretation of the phrase "doctrine added a couple of centuries AD".

And the NT is immune from such additions, deletions, translations, and editing? See above.

See? You did it again! Where did I say that?

Because you've said you don't put much stock in it. Didn't you?

No.

Edited for clarity. No, I don't put much stock in it. Yes, I said that.

You think, or you know? Are you forming opinions on the history of biblical text on what you think, or what you know?

I'm pulling together my murky memories of what actual biblical scholars have said or written, including the lady who wrote that book about the Gnostic Gospels.

Are you referring the Council of Nicea?

Possibly. Wasn't there something at Worms? Who dropped the Gospel of Thomas?

"church leaders outside of the Bible?" WTF? Please explain.

Can't. Didn't say it. Let's see, you seem to have taken a phrase from one sentence, "church leaders", and attached it to another from another sentence, "outside of the Bible".

What I actually said was that church leaders, over the centuries, have created DOCTRINE. And that while using the Bible as justification, when a leader writes words down with his own pen, and says "this is what you are to believe now", those are extra-Biblical words. See? Something written by the current Pope, for instance, would qualify as words that aren't part of the Bible. He's a church leader. His words are not in the Bible. Therefore what he writes is "outside of the Bible".

By the way, what kind of Christian are you? I'm not a Christian, but I have a Bible in my library.

I don't know. You're making up my viewpoint, you tell me.

OK, how's this? I'm the kind who is doing his best to muddle through all the extraneous stuff added over the centuries and figure out what the ideal of human behavior intended by Christ might have been. I'm the kind who won't drop down dead if Christ turns out never to have existed, since the ideal is the important thing.

Ah. Brings up another point. So, God is Jesus, Jesus is God, right?

Who are you quoting now? Not me.

So what does it matter? Wasn't Jesus as God (pre Jesus God) setting the stage for new, improved Jesus-God in the OT? So all those "other books are other stuff" would be somewhat important, would they not?

Not in my opinion. Have I made that clear enough yet?

Also, you once again seem to have moved the meaning of one of my sentences around. I was saying the Gospels are not the entirety of the NT. When I said "the other books are other stuff" I was referring to the other books of the NT. When you take this phrase and (apparently) apply it to the OT, you are attributing words to me which I didn't say. I was merely making the point that when I talk Gospels, I'm not talking about the whole NT. In that short paragraph (which nevertheless was long enough to misconstrue) I didn't mention or refer to the OT at all.

So "not in my opinion" in the original sentence means that, no I don't think the other books of the NT are that important to me personally. Since you redirected "other books" to mean OT I guess I'll add that I don't spend a lot of time worrying about those either.

And they're not the "direct teachings of Christ" just because some people who said they were are.

That's correct. That would be the intent of my statement to do with the fact that the four Gospels were all written ex-post-facto.

It's fascinating how completely every word I've said has been turned upside down. I can't imagine who you are actually reading or arguing with. It isn't me, as I don't recall disagreeing with you on anything except the historical period I was talking about.

 

[gecko]

Reading over my post, I realized what you are going to say. You're going to ask what meaning christians should find in their lives...what they should do. Right? Well, I don't know for 100% sure, but here are my thoughts.

Christians often like to think there's some little list of what they have to do to be good people, or to get into heaven, or what have you. In my opinion, there's no little list. We are all put here with the goal to find God, love him, and help others do the same(this IS my opinion). So, how do we do that? In whatever way we see best I guess. With the Holy Spirit in our hearts, and the Bible in our hands, we have to forge our own way in life and decide how we can best spread God's will to the world.

For people good at speaking, maybe they want to become a pastor. For adventurous, compassionate people, maybe a missionary. For someone who acts well, they can make mounds of money, give it all to charity, and be a good person along the way. You can make your life what you will no matter what your interests or talents are.

Again, my opinion, this is what I'm basing what I'm saying on. If you have any questions, ask away. If not, have a good one(well, have a good one regardless lol).

Brian

 

[turtle]

Originally posted by turtle
I find it funny that you will not give the same amount of religious faith to the OT because it's full of "contradictory doctrinal stuff" when the NT also is full of "contradictory doctrinal stuff." [/B

(To all skeptics in here: now I understand why some of you resort to insults and sarcasm out of sheer frusration. Not that it makes it okay. But I understand.)

Oy.

that's not my point.

The Bible, OT, NT, has been written by men, as in , human beings, who say they were divinely inspired by God.

Oy. Not mine either. I fully agree. I just thought it was strange when I made a statement about stuff being added centuries AD and you interpreted this as being a statement about the Old Testament.

You are not understanding my points and questions at all.

I am not a literalist.

I am not a literalist.

I am not a literalist.

I am not a literalist.

I am not a literalist.

I am not a literalist.

Do I take that literally?

I've said, in as many ways as I can think of, that the NT, far from being divine, is the work of humans and is deeply flawed.

In addition to your interpretation of "centuries AD" as "OT", I was also trying to point out that when I say "teachings of Christ, as they are recorded in the Gospels", I'm not saying "all of the NT". I'm not having a theological argument with you, just trying to point out that when you read Holy Roman Empire and tell me I'm talking OT, or read Gospels and tell me I'm talking about the NT entirely, you're misreading me.

I'm not misleading you. I'm trying to understand what you are saying.

I'd be having the same argument if I started talking about post Revolutionary America and you told me I was talking about Medieval France, if I was talking about the Beatles and you wanted to know why I was saying those things about George Gershwin.

Fine. But this does not apply. (unless we're talking about the influence of Gershwin, if any, upon the Beatles, lol)

I'm asking you direct questions, you are not answering them.

The OT predating the NT has nothing to do with these points.

Which I wasn't arguing. The OT predating the NT just has to do with the interpretation of the phrase "doctrine added a couple of centuries AD".

And the NT is immune from such additions, deletions, translations, and editing? See above.

See? You did it again! Where did I say that?

I will once again make this clear and easy for you: I didn't say you said this, I am asking you a question! Do you, or do you not, agree with the above statement?

Because you've said you don't put much stock in it. Didn't you?

No.[/B]

Hmm. Have to go back and read your posts.

Edited for clarity. No, I don't put much stock in it. Yes, I said that.

??? Oh, never mind. So you do acknowledge saying you don't put much stock in it? Okay then. sheesh.

You think, or you know? Are you forming opinions on the history of biblical text on what you think, or what you know?

I'm pulling together my murky memories of what actual biblical scholars have said or written, including the lady who wrote that book about the Gnostic Gospels.

Are you referring the Council of Nicea?

Possibly. Wasn't there something at Worms? Who dropped the Gospel of Thomas?

You're the one who brought it up, not me. Don't you know what you're talking about?

"church leaders outside of the Bible?" WTF? Please explain.

Can't. Didn't say it. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes you did.

Let's see, you seem to have taken a phrase from one sentence, "church leaders", and attached it to another from another sentence, "outside of the Bible".

I'll find you the post.

What I actually said was that church leaders, over the centuries, have created DOCTRINE.

Yep.

And that while using the Bible as justification, when a leader writes words down with his own pen, and says "this is what you are to believe now", those are extra-Biblical words. See?

I now understand that this is what you meant. You were not clear before.

Something written by the current Pope, for instance, would qualify as words that aren't part of the Bible. He's a church leader. His words are not in the Bible. Therefore what he writes is "outside of the Bible".

Which brings me to another point. Wouldn't anyone, any human, who wrote whatever words appear in the Bible, be also considered "outside of the Bible?"

By the way, what kind of Christian are you? I'm not a Christian, but I have a Bible in my library.

I don't know. You're making up my viewpoint, you tell me.

I am not "making up" your "viewpoint." I am trying to understand what you are saying, and trying to get you to be clear. Do not evade the question.

OK, how's this? I'm the kind who is doing his best to muddle through all the extraneous stuff added over the centuries and figure out what the ideal of human behavior intended by Christ might have been. I'm the kind who won't drop down dead if Christ turns out never to have existed, since the ideal is the important thing.

Cool.

Ah. Brings up another point. So, God is Jesus, Jesus is God, right?

Who are you quoting now? Not me.

Stop being so defensive and worried about "who are you quoting now" -- I didn't put that in quotes, so it should be clear that I am not quoting anyone. I am asking you if, being a Christian, you believe that JC is God, and God is JC etc. It's a question. Do you have an answer?

So what does it matter? Wasn't Jesus as God (pre Jesus God) setting the stage for new, improved Jesus-God in the OT? So all those "other books are other stuff" would be somewhat important, would they not?

Not in my opinion. Have I made that clear enough yet?

Barely.

So pre JC god was just what? Messing around?

And they're not the "direct teachings of Christ" just because some people who said they were are.

That's correct. That would be the intent of my statement to do with the fact that the four Gospels were all written ex-post-facto.

It's fascinating how completely every word I've said has been turned upside down.

It's fascinating how completely every word I've said has been turned upside down. Yes, isn't it?

I'm asking you questions, answer them please.

Should be simple enough.

Part of why I'm asking you questions is because I do not understand much of your points. Therefore, I ask. See how it works?

I can't imagine who you are actually reading or arguing with. It isn't me, as I don't recall disagreeing with you on anything except the historical period I was talking about.

As I said, why you're so defensive I have no idea. I'm asking you questions about Christianity. You did say you were a Christian, right?

 

[rppa]

No. This would be a question that I'm asking you out of curiosity.

OK, out of curiosity, you're asking me "If everyone follows JC and/or the Bible correctly, then why are there so many denominations?"

Since I don't agree with your premise, I can't figure out how I'm supposed to answer. Out of curiosity, why if Sylvester Stallone is the greatest actor of our time, didn't he win a lifetime Oscar this year? I'm curious what your answer to this is.

LOL, then why bother?

Why bother what?

It is your opinion, your interpretation of what JC, the authors of the NT, OT, whatever-T, etc. 'really meant.'

Yes, it is my opinion of what JC "really meant". When we choose our moral ideal, what else do we have except our best attempt at figuring out what that ideal is?

Everything after "the authors" is stuff you added that I didn't say.


By the way, if one believes the Bible is the literal word of God/JC, then following "both JC and the Bible" would not be "logically impossible."

That's correct. You are gradually circling closer to my own viewpoint, in between interjecting whoever you are channeling. So when I said it's logically impossible to follow both JC and the Bible, and when I said that the message started to go wrong with Paul, I'm pretty sure I'm saying I don't think the Bible is the literal word of God.

When I say that everything past the first four books of the Gospel is where humans started to inject their own prejudices, starting with Paul, and got it wrong, I am not saying the Bible, even the post Gospel books of the NT, are the literal word of JC.

When I say that the four Gospels were written decades after the time of Christ, I am not saying that the four Gospels are the literal word of JC.

Let me repeat it: The authors of the NT got it wrong. I think the message that comes through in the four Gospels is reasonably intact, but there are obvious personal notes added and differences in emphases.

You will not get a statement from me that the authors of any book in the Bible were anything but fallible humans, doing fallible translations. Any attempt to create such a position for the purposes of having someone to argue with is what we call a "strawman".

What's the "ideal?" Seems to be quite elusive. If it weren't, everyone would be in agreement. Simple.

It is. We're not. Simple, isn't it?

But as I said, I admire the Quakers. I think they seem to be closest.

So why am I not a Quaker? Because I don't have the courage to be a pacifist. I think a military is still necessary.

But wait, doesn't that mean my personal beliefs are against what I think is the ideal I've said I'm trying to follow, my view of JC's original intent?

Yes. On that score, I fall short. I just think I'm being more honest than people who want to claim God fights on their side in a war. Wars are not Christian. They may be necessary, but when you fight a war you are turning your back on the Christian ideal. If Jesus were here today, there's no question in my mind he'd be a pacifist. And against capital punishment, which once again I am uncertain that I believe is never appropriate.

It will be interesting to see what the strawman version of me looks like next.