The Truth of Christianity vs. All Other Belief Systems

[Ethnikos]

Just...wow.

Too harsh? Babylon. You don't pick your favorite street in the city, you move out.

That's the way to convince us sinners that your woo is the proper brand of woo and that you're well studied in your particular brand of woo...

I'm talking about professed believers. The status quo, vs. progress in faith.

Other posters are explaining how this schism does affect you and what you believe, and you say that it has nothing to do with you? Do you even realize where your woo comes from? Have you any knowledge of the history of your woo besides what an obviously biased preacher/minister/pastor has said?

Yes, I started that a long time ago, studying the writings of the old authors like Jerome and Augustine and Origen and Philo and Eusebius. I also studied under a Rabbi who had a doctor's degree in the schism between Judaism and Christianity. I also was good friends with the publishers of a magazine dedicated to the Reformation Gospel through the examination of the Protestant authors.
Why else would I bother writing on religious forums? I feel obligated to share some of what I have learned. I realize there are people posting here who are technically better qualified to state their opinions but they do not agree with mine. If they did, I would go about doing something else to occupy myself, which I have plenty of.

 

[Ethnikos]

And since you saw fit to edit your post half an hour after my response (bolded portion), I am now completely confident in saying you know nothing about Buddhism.

Or Hinduism (underlined portion).

PS - If you meant Siddhartha, as in Siddhartha Guatama, he didn't write anything that we know of. The written record of Buddhism started around 400 years after his death.

Just didn't feel like making a new post. I figured you were logged on and would notice the addition.
The book I read was the novel mentioned by a couple posters.
I was good friends with a buddhist, whatever you would call such a person, not sure if it would be a guru, but who not really taught buddhism, but I guess you just hang out with and somehow absorb some attributes, or something.
I know something about the religion, which is talking about it stops the flow. So, I can feel your reluctance to not directly contradict me because it would ruin what you have inside you. I can respect that and will not antagonize you.

 

[Ethnikos]

First, why did he need to use/manipulate people to have them write "his words"? If he can do what he is claimed he can do, then he could have simply made these texts plop into existance out of nowhere. Like, lets say, into the surface of some mountains.

It's a history that has to be written as it goes along.

Then, why does he need to instruct people at all? He is supposed to have created them in the first place. So he could have made them with the "instructions" build in. Did he forget that, or what?

Created, yes. God did directly create two people. Back then, before the thousands of years of corruption got us to where we are now, God would have only had to instruct those particular people and they would retain the memory of that instruction forever to pass along to the succeeding generations.

Wrong. It was not preserved. You may want to read up the definition of preserved. What we have is a book that was edited, changed and manipulated again and again over time.

Hopefully we will be able to detect the deliberate errors that may have been introduced to support an existing doctrine. God should be able to restrain too much damage to the Bible to where it will be possible to get the intended meaning from it.
There is a verse in Revelation where an angel standing in the water declares the end to the mystery. It says regarding times, but it may be indicative of a broader understanding that will take place.

 

[Elizabeth I]

It's a history that has to be written as it goes along.

But it's not being written as it goes along. It stopped about 2,000 years ago, unless you happen to be a Mormon.

 

[Christian Klippel]

It's a history that has to be written as it goes along.

As Elizabeth said, it stopped to be written long ago.

Since then, it was just modified to make it fit whatever the editors thought it need to fit.

Created, yes. God did directly create two people. Back then, before the thousands of years of corruption got us to where we are now, God would have only had to instruct those particular people and they would retain the memory of that instruction forever to pass along to the succeeding generations.

So, the almighty, all-perfect sky daddy was unable to make them in a way that they could not be corrupted? And why wanted he to keep Adam and Eve dumb? I mean, you know, the snake promised something and exactly that happened. It told the truth. But skydaddy wanted them to stay dumb.

Hopefully we will be able to detect the deliberate errors that may have been introduced to support an existing doctrine. God should be able to restrain too much damage to the Bible to where it will be possible to get the intended meaning from it.
There is a verse in Revelation where an angel standing in the water declares the end to the mystery. It says regarding times, but it may be indicative of a broader understanding that will take place.

This, again, just doesn't make any sense. How comes the almighty skydaddy is unable to protect his own words? Mind you, he is supposed to be almighty, isn't he?

And in any case, why should someone try "to get the intended meaning" of it? Shouldn't it be crystal clear instead? Why is any amount of interpretation needed at all? Did skydaddy mumble around like a drunk when he dictated it?

You just gave an example. Some Angel happen to said so, but he could have meant something else. Whoever "inspired" that book was obviously unable to clearly state what he/she had in mind. Or the people who got "inspired" where just too dumb to understand it. Either case makes the whole book just unreliable. Because no one really know what was meant. Every attempt to interpret it is merely a guesswork. And as such, the outcome is highly likely to be influenced by whoever interpreted it, just so to make that person's interpretation fit with it's worldview.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Ethnikos]

... Nope.
This was not the definition of Messiah. The messiah was just a character hand-picked by God to do his work.
The Jews considered that there had been several Messiah in history, including several Pagan ones, that were considered human in every aspects.

Solomon could be considered the first messiah. He was also a son of God.

The Messiah they were expecting at the time, as far as we know, would have been a Jewish revolutionary similar to the Maccabees.

Or you could look at who was the previous messiah, who would have been of the Hasmonian dynasty of the Maccabees. John Hyracanus would be probably the last one who had a full complement of the mesianic powers. This is the elder John Hyracanus who ran around with Antipater, the father of Herod the Great. He was interested in the high priestly aspect of the job and left the civil authority to Antipator, which John had every right to.
John had the ability to heal the sick by touching them. He could foresee future events. He could somehow see events taking place at distances and locations that were outside of normal sight. I think Jesus had no desire to be like Herod at all and felt more drawn to the figure of John as something to emulate. A nod to Judah Macabee could be the driving out of the money changers.

But you mention the 'Messianic expectations', and the Jewish messianic tradition was different and did not include all these. It came in the Christian traditions and post-date Jesus' life.

What do you mean? That there is a falsified version that was introduced later? Could be, I guess. I am referencing earlier Jewish documents, not Christian, which I find mostly self serving.

But; only Christianity believes that you have such a man.
In other word: Christianity is superior, for those who already are Christians which is fine and dandy, but a bit circular.

A matter of faith, and not exactly provable. Regardless of its being true or not, thinking it is true would be comforting to the believer, thus having a value in itself.

 

[Lucian]

<snip>
They were more like ignorant teenagers who had no clue they'd done anything wrong, because they didn't have knowledge of good or evil until after they ate from the tree.

I don't know; I think you're giving God the Father too much credit for fairness. To me, it seems more like taking two puppies that haven't been housebroken yet and telling them they can relieve themselves anywhere but on the Puppy Pad of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

 

[Simon39759]

Solomon could be considered the first messiah. He was also a son of God.
Or you could look at who was the previous messiah, who would have been of the Hasmonian dynasty of the Maccabees. John Hyracanus would be probably the last one who had a full complement of the mesianic powers. This is the elder John Hyracanus who ran around with Antipater, the father of Herod the Great. He was interested in the high priestly aspect of the job and left the civil authority to Antipator, which John had every right to.
John had the ability to heal the sick by touching them. He could foresee future events. He could somehow see events taking place at distances and locations that were outside of normal sight. I think Jesus had no desire to be like Herod at all and felt more drawn to the figure of John as something to emulate. A nod to Judah Macabee could be the driving out of the money changers.

Cyrus the great.

What do you mean? That there is a falsified version that was introduced later? Could be, I guess. I am referencing earlier Jewish documents, not Christian, which I find mostly self serving.

For the Jews, the messiah would be a king (from the Davidic line) that would kick the Romans in the nutae and restore an independant kingdom of Israel.
Apart from the two contradictory allegations of a Davidian lineage, there is nothing from the concept that really applies to Jesus.

Reading the gospels, one has the impression that the Christians slowly developed a story of who Jesus was (and hence the rise in supernatural events in the later written gospel of John) and then revisited the definition of messiah to bring it in line which the way the view Jesus Christ (they also picked up a few thing they decided were Messianic prediction and fit them into the Jesus narrative, or adapted the narrative to fit them).

 

[jmcvann]

God should be able to restrain too much damage to the Bible to where it will be possible to get the intended meaning from it.

Should be able to??? I don't sense much conviction from you in that sentence. He's God, for God's sake!

 

[Ethnikos]

Why not? God didn't do anything special with the tree in the garden to protect people from themselves. God didn't do anything special to help people protect themselves to prevent a global flood. Why would God all of a sudden violate free will and supernaturally preserve the scripture?

God gave Adam instruction about the tree.
God had Noah build an ark, which is a protection. God preserved the righteous.

The reality is that out of 5700+ fragments of Greek NT manuscripts, no two agree with each other.

Let's say in another hundred years scholars agree on one specific text, then they never produce a bible again that is not from that approved text. Then a thousand years later, all that can be found is the books printed after the decision. Future archaeologists would assume the Bible must be true, since they all agree. Does that sound right?

There was more than one set, each individual group of early Christians would have commissioned copies of the books they thought most important. It's not like today where books are cheap.

ok

And for every copy, changes were introduced since it's impossible to make a perfect copy by hand. And since those copies were all geographically separated, and were very expensive, it's not like they would just check them with each other every so often to see what changes were made.

right

So over time most Christians wouldn't even know which copies were closer to the originals.

Hopefully there wouldn't be too much variation. They will do things like compare Armenian translations.

So now there's whole areas of scholarship dedicated to try to reconstruct the originals.

great

So if god has been trying to keep his word together since the early Christian church, he's not doing a very good job.

He's ok.

 

[Ethnikos]

Hooray! I seem to be part of a Satanic cult!

Don't like a religion? Worried that others may go to a different one? Call YOUR religion the 'one true faith' and all others 'Satanic Cults'! That'll show 'em!

Once you have a church who calls themselves the church, on account of anyone disagreeing with that claim having been murdered, Satan is in control.

 

[Simon39759]

God gave Adam instruction about the tree.
God had Noah build an ark, which is a protection. God preserved the righteous.

Except when he doesn't.
There is the whole book of Job on that subject.

Let's say in another hundred years scholars agree on one specific text, then they never produce a bible again that is not from that approved text. Then a thousand years later, all that can be found is the books printed after the decision. Future archaeologists would assume the Bible must be true, since they all agree. Does that sound right?

Depends of their criteria to elect this particular piece of text.
But, yes, it would be the 'true Bible' or truer, or closest possible document. Which is only as true as the original was, of course.

Hopefully there wouldn't be too much variation. They will do things like compare Armenian translations.

Why Armenian? Do you mean Aramean (the language being, in fact, Aramaic)?
As far as we know, the gospels were written directly in Greek.

 

[Ethnikos]

You mean, a conspiracy?
Who do you suppose is behind it? The New World Order? Satan?
And... I have to ask... do you have any evidence?

Not personally. I am not an investigator.
But there are several sources of information about the goals and tactics of the Jesuits and the Illuminati.
People do worship Satan, even if you do not want to believe it, and they do it right in the Vatican, from reports. They believe that Lucifer is the real god and that Jehovah is nothing but a pretend god who wants to keep us from reaching our full potential. To them the serpent in the garden is to be commended. They are wrong because they believe in selfishness.
The fruit of their religion is death.

 

[Ethnikos]

Just so I have this straight: People can go to the meetings of the satanic cult, and believe what they're told by the satanic cult, but they'll still be OK?

Occult means hidden. Hidden in plain sight. They have symbols on display but the ordinary person does not comprehend the significance.
Hosea 4:6
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge

Unless, when you "think for yourself," you don't get it exactly right, like you have. If I "translate" and "interpret" even a little bit wrong, I'm hell-bound. Fortunately, we have you (and I assume at least a few others) who have gotten it right and can help me when I "translate" and "interpret" your wacky book.

Know who God is. Can someone tell you? You have to know it yourself. Read the written word, which exists for the sake of the living word, which is Jesus. First God gives prophets. We are not necessarily each of us going to write a new chapter in the Bible but we should be able to read what is already there.
I am thankful that you understand that we need each other. Prophecy is not for private use, otherwise it would not be prophecy. There should be a sharing of insight. There is a thing that is momentary insight that goes nowhere, and there is a persistent insight, that does go someplace. What I mean is that it has multiple applications and it holds up to scrutiny against other Biblical truths.
Wacky is not what you should want. If it seems that way to you it is because you do not have a spiritual understanding that can not come from inside yourself, but must come from God. Jesus is the one to talk to about having that given to you and he will not refuse you.

 

[Hokulele]

Just didn't feel like making a new post. I figured you were logged on and would notice the addition.
The book I read was the novel mentioned by a couple posters.
I was good friends with a buddhist, whatever you would call such a person, not sure if it would be a guru, but who not really taught buddhism, but I guess you just hang out with and somehow absorb some attributes, or something.
I know something about the religion, which is talking about it stops the flow. So, I can feel your reluctance to not directly contradict me because it would ruin what you have inside you. I can respect that and will not antagonize you.

I am not a Buddhist, but I have studied it quite a bit, even going so far as to stay in a monastery in Japan and attend their morning services (yes, I said monastery, they had accomodations for guests of either sex). Your simplification of Buddhism is as inaccurate as my deliberate simplification of Christianity.

I was simply making the point that this thread is about the truth of Christianity vs. all other belief systems and your special pleading on behalf of Jesus is no more compelling than a Buddhist's special pleading on behalf of the Buddha.

 

[Paulhoff]

God gave Adam instruction about the tree.

Gave instructions to someone who didn't know good from evil, no knowledge, sure that would work out OK, Adam and Eve are still in Eden.

Your all-knowing so-called god is anything but one.

Paul

 

[Ethnikos]

You seem to have little understanding of Budhism. That's ok, we can't all be specialists, just don't make categoric pronouncements about your superiority based on this crude knowledge, it sounds both arrogant and insulting.

I don't intend to be mean. I never would have brought it up myself.
As far as knowing, nobody knows anything, so what. It's only an illusion, and you should know that, of course if such a thing existed. Maybe I live in some sort of fantasy world, and even if I did not, what difference would it make?
If you have a great religion and you are at total peace with the world, having nothing but harmonious thoughts, more power to you.

In contrast with Roman Catholics whose knowledge of the Bible comes from Archie comics...

You need to make a few distinctions regarding who exactly you are talking about. Maybe I think the leadership of the church I go to are of Satan. They could be, and why not. That does not mean every person attending church today are going to hell. But what if the church was headed downhill fast and they had to decide to bail out and switch religion or be lost themselves? They should.
Here's the problem, the church a long time ago was going down hill fast but everyone who bailed got killed. So much later, the church is still there but it does not look like it is going anywhere too fast. Can they bail now. Yes, and do it while you can. They can kill you later but fear the One who can kill body and soul.
That being said, most of the early writers were pagans and looked at the Bible from that outlook. Can we improve on that? I hope so.

Ok; you seem to be repeating the old canard that Roman Catholics are not allowed to read the Bible and that they only read the Catechism.
That has not been true for several centuries, you know?

I was talking about before that.

Also, do you read classical Greek? How is your fluency on Hebrew?
Then how can you translate the Bible yourself?

Very slowly. I do know people who are very good at it though and I can ask them if I become too concerned.

And, of course, you are dealing with a culture that has been, at best, 2000 years dead. Wouldn't you wish some advices about somebody that actually studied the culture in question rather than 'interpret it in your own mind'?

Yes I would. The thing is, from how I look at it, the people who wrote the Old Testament did understand the language to some extent. If you could know what sequence the various parts were written, that would go a long way to understand it. For example this verse I was working on, Genesis 3:16. You find a rather obscure word that only appears in that particular form in that one verse. If you find another spot with something that seems to be that same word, just slightly different, and it is in a much more recently written book, you can use that later less obscure usage to get a grip on the older completely untranslatable verse. And that is what I think. I think they used a horrible excuse for logic to get a translation that fits the translator's bigoted views. What views? The views of some people much later, who had no clue to the real meanings of the more obscure verses, but had an outdated understanding of what certain old Hebrew words might mean. That would be the Septuagint. What!? but didn't Jesus quote from that? No, you fools, he spoke Aramaic.

How is the help of God's Spirit any different than making things up that you like and pretend it is there?

One thing builds on another and you see the construction, not a demolishing.

 

[Sun Countess]

Let's say in another hundred years scholars agree on one specific text, then they never produce a bible again that is not from that approved text. Then a thousand years later, all that can be found is the books printed after the decision. Future archaeologists would assume the Bible must be true, since they all agree. Does that sound right?

I'm just wondering why you assume archeologists would assume the bible must be "true?" If they found JK Rowling's Harry Potter original manuscripts, would they assume those were "true" as well?

It's a work of fiction, and it would be recognized as such. The fact that so many parts contradict each other just means it's a not-very-good work of fiction. Talk about issues with continuity.

 

[Simon39759]

Well, after looking at the various version present, I believe that in the closest from original (and hence, truer) of all the versions we have, Han shot first!.

 

[Ethnikos]

I'm just wondering why you assume archeologists would assume the bible must be "true?" If they found JK Rowling's Harry Potter original manuscripts, would they assume those were "true" as well?
It's a work of fiction, and it would be recognized as such. The fact that so many parts contradict each other just means it's a not-very-good work of fiction. Talk about issues with continuity.

It was a rhetorical question. The answer should be, of course not.
You can not determine if something is true by looking at how many variations there are of it.
No, it would not be a good work of fiction, taken as a whole. There are lessons to be learned in vignettes. There are principles to live by contained within them.