Judeo-Christian wackiness

[heretic888]

From the National Prayer Day thread:

This is not a thread about the "pagan" or "shamenistic" influences of Christianity, whether or not Shaolinwolf said that the "Jews" control the world or not, whether or not the Jewish "high priests" were controlled by the Roman government, whether or not Mel Gibson is the true messiah or not, or whether or not Christianity is a "poppycock" grand conspiricy to control the world.

If you want to talk about any of those things, start another thread.

This is that thread. Have fun.

 

[heretic888]

It [the Bible] was infallible then they couldn't find anything fallible. ok?

Yes, but "they" have.

It is almost universally agreed by scholars that a "world flood" never occured, even among conservative circles. The best we can see is that perhaps a local flood around the Levant happened at some point (but, even then, the evidence is a little iffy). It is generally agreed, however, that the Noah story borrows heavily from the earlier Epic of Gilgamesh (of Babylonian fame) --- even contemporary Jewish scholars are coming to this conclusion.

I don't really need to go into the "the world is 6,000 years old" angle or the creationism vs evolutionism debate here, to point out that many of the claims in the Bible -- as interpreted literally --- are indeed in question of "fallibility".

The worst, of course, comes from the New Testament (in this particular case, with Mark --- supposedly the 'earliest' of the Synoptics):

"In the seventh chapter, for instance, Jesus is reported as going through Sidon on his way from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee. Not only is Sidon in the opposite direction, but there was no road from Sidon to the Sea of Galilee in the first century CE, only one from Tyre. Similarly the fifth chapter refers to the Sea of Galilee's eastern shore as the country of the Gerasenes, yet Gerasa, today Jerash, is more than thirty miles to the southeast, too far away for a story whose setting requires a nearby city with a steep slope down to the sea. Aside from geography, Mark represented Jesus as saying 'If a woman divorces her husband and marries another she is guilty of adultery' (Mark 10:12), a precept which would have been meaningless in the Jewish world, where women had no rights of divorce." (I. Wilson, "Jesus: The Evidence")

There is also, of course, Jesus' birth during the census at Quirinus ---- which was supposed to have taken place under Herod's rule. Problem is, there was no census under Herod at this time, nor did Herod ever order a "slaughter of infants" as the NT records (although such an event is quite common in Pagan mythology).

By no means is any of this represenatitive of "infallibility".

 

[someguy]

Ok so lets restart the fun. I'm a christian of no particular denomination raised between methodist and presbeterian with other denomonations thown in. Basically I was raised Christian.
I want to see the proof the Jews killed Christ.

As to predictions well tell me some evnt and I can show how the word cheese forshadowed its coming. If I really feel like trying.

As to heritic saying evidence wins every time over faith. Nope I'm sure this can be disproven. Faith sometimes can be disprovven by evidnce but evidence also requires an interpretation. If I want to disprove something and I have shaky evidence I can sort of do it. I can also prove it. I can also question the integrity of evidence.
OJ wasn't convicted. There was plenty of eveidence abou his guilt. That wasn't faith but it proves hw little eviedence can do at times.

As to using primary sources to prove what Shaolin Wolf said well I disagree with what he said but I also think proving it would be almost impossible if it were true.
Sorry about any toes I may have stepped on. I'm not sure how much sense any of that made.

 

[someguy]

Well we can also debate the whole should the bible be taken ltterally always. Well lets ask this. I'm sure a fair number of Christians would say that God is Omnipotent. So why take a six days to make the world and why rest on the next one.
With Omnipotence the question about predestination is raised though.
Of course then we can go into what is the point of anthing? Why are we alive? Why is there anything rather than nothing? It can only go down hill from here.

 

[heretic888]

I want to see the proof the Jews killed Christ.

I second that.

As to predictions well tell me some evnt and I can show how the word cheese forshadowed its coming. If I really feel like trying.

Indeed. Certain individuals have a tendency to "read into" things whatever they wish, usually for the explicit purpose of furthering an agenda. All of these "prophetic" claims concerning the Revelation of John are not made in an attempt to help us decipher the future in any way, or to help alleviate world problems through divination. Rather, they are performed with the express purpose of "proving" the power of God and the Bible. Its agenda-driven.

And, once again, none of these claims about "Revelation predicted 9/11 would happen!!" were never made until, well, 9/11 had already happened. Hindsight is 20/20.

As to heritic saying evidence wins every time over faith. Nope I'm sure this can be disproven. Faith sometimes can be disprovven by evidnce but evidence also requires an interpretation. If I want to disprove something and I have shaky evidence I can sort of do it. I can also prove it. I can also question the integrity of evidence.

I will admit that the quotation of mine that you are referring to was phrased rather badly.

What I meant to say was that if we are in possession of concrete, solid counterevidence to claims made out of faith --- then the rational mind must side with the evidence. By no means does this mean all claims for evidence are equally valid, or that there is not an interpretive element to be factored in. However, when we do truly possess strong evidence in juxtaposition to faith-driven beliefs, then the only rational conclusion is to detach from such beliefs (or, at the very least, to try and reinterpret them).

OJ wasn't convicted. There was plenty of eveidence abou his guilt. That wasn't faith but it proves hw little eviedence can do at times.

Well, assuming there actually was telling evidence (I didn't follow the case that closely so I don't really know), then I'd say that conclusion had more to do with people's perceptions (or perhaps even agendas) than anything else.

As to using primary sources to prove what Shaolin Wolf said well I disagree with what he said but I also think proving it would be almost impossible if it were true.

Well, if it can't be proven, one shouldn't be presenting it as "plain fact".

Laterz.

 

[Cruentus]

Well, if it can't be proven, one shouldn't be presenting it as "plain fact".

I agree with you there. But, would you also agree with me that in ancient history, there are very few "plain facts," and most of what we think we know has to be taken with some degree of faith? :idunno:

 

[heretic888]

Well we can also debate the whole should the bible be taken ltterally always.

Indeed. But, at that point, new problems arise: exactly which parts of the Bible should be read as history, and which parts should be read symbolically?? How do you tell the difference?? What is the criteria??

After all, if the "created in six days" is a metaphor or a symbol of some sort, could it not be argued that the Crucifixion and Resurrection are metaphors?? Is God a metaphor?? Heaven and Hell?? What is literal and what is symbolical??

These are all important questions to ask.

With Omnipotence the question about predestination is raised though.

Yep, philosophers been debating that one for millenia. Of course, my personal opinion is that the entire problem of fate vs free will is ultimately (and only) solved in Nonduality.

Of course then we can go into what is the point of anthing? Why are we alive? Why is there anything rather than nothing? It can only go down hill from here.

No, I don't think so. Those are all very important questions to ask oneself.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

But, would you also agree with me that in ancient history, there are very few "plain facts," and most of what we think we know has to be taken with some degree of faith?

Errr.... sorta.

Its true that, the farther back in history we go, the more difficult it is to confirm things (there are exceptions to this trend, of course). It is also true that, even with solid "evidence", there still remains a strong interpretive and hermeneutic component to be taken into account --- as the great structuralists remind us. Modern studies concerning "eyewitness accounts" are testament to this.

However, this does not necessarily mean its "all a matter of opinion" or "all a matter of faith" as many subjectivists claim. There is evidence, but there is also interpretation. The two go hand-in-hand: objectivity cannot exsist without subjectivity.

I would say, ultimately, it depends on the individual circumstance.

Laterz.

 

[Cruentus]

Indeed. But, at that point, new problems arise: exactly which parts of the Bible should be read as history, and which parts should be read symbolically?? How do you tell the difference?? What is the criteria??

After all, if the "created in six days" is a metaphor or a symbol of some sort, could it not be argued that the Crucifixion and Resurrection are metaphors?? Is God a metaphor?? Heaven and Hell?? What is literal and what is symbolical??

These are all important questions to ask.
.

Laterz.

I agree, all important questions. I feel that they can be answered by trying to look at the intentions of the authors of the texts. Some scripture was intended to be a "mythology," meaning true in the figurative rather then literal sense, and ment to tell a lesson. Some may have been communications to illustrate issues of faith, and may have never intended to be compiled in a "book" like the bible, but are there for our observation all the same. Some may have been written simply to praise God, like psalms. Some may have been intended as a historical account.

Figuring out which was which and the intent of each scripture is certianly easier said then done, and is the subject of arguement in all christian sects.

I think that we have to make as educated of a guess as we can, based on the evidence that we do have. And, that is the best that we can do.

One thing that I do believe is I believe that a lot of mistakes are made by christians who take every word of the bible literally. I can argue til' sunset that not every scripture was ment to be taken in a literal manner.!

 

[Cruentus]

Errr.... sorta.

Its true that, the farther back in history we go, the more difficult it is to confirm things (there are exceptions to this trend, of course). It is also true that, even with solid "evidence", there still remains a strong interpretive and hermeneutic component to be taken into account --- as the great structuralists remind us. Modern studies concerning "eyewitness accounts" are testament to this.

However, this does not necessarily mean its "all a matter of opinion" or "all a matter of faith" as many subjectivists claim. There is evidence, but there is also interpretation. The two go hand-in-hand: objectivity cannot exsist without subjectivity.

I would say, ultimately, it depends on the individual circumstance.

Laterz.

I agree with you so far.

 

[heretic888]

I agree, all important questions. I feel that they can be answered by trying to look at the intentions of the authors of the texts. Some scripture was intended to be a "mythology," meaning true in the figurative rather then literal sense, and ment to tell a lesson. Some may have been communications to illustrate issues of faith, and may have never intended to be compiled in a "book" like the bible, but are there for our observation all the same. Some may have been written simply to praise God, like psalms. Some may have been intended as a historical account.

This is a very tricky area, in my opinion.

It can be exceedingly difficult to decipher the intentions of the authors, and most attempts are often colored by the intentions of the interpreter himself!! As Freke and Gandy put it, fire-and-brimstone types tend to see fire-and-brimstone Jesuses, Buddhists tend to see Buddhist Jesuses, liberal protestors tend to see liberal protesting Jesuses, and so on. With a tradition so culturally "loaded" as the Biblical one, it can be almost impossible to divorce these various agendas from actual scientific process.

I, for example, believe that 'Jesus Christ' himself was a symbolic visionary character --- intended to symbolize the Christian initiate himself throughout various stages of development. I believe the Crucifixion and Resurrection were symbols pointing something more akin to Gnosis, Jnana, or Nirvana rather than historical events. Obviously, this is not a very common or popular interpretation.

Figuring out which was which and the intent of each scripture is certianly easier said then done, and is the subject of arguement in all christian sects.

I think that we have to make as educated of a guess as we can, based on the evidence that we do have. And, that is the best that we can do.

One thing that I do believe is I believe that a lot of mistakes are made by christians who take every word of the bible literally. I can argue til' sunset that not every scripture was ment to be taken in a literal manner.!

Agreed.

I agree with you so far.

Yay! :asian:

 

[someguy]

This is a very tricky area, in my opinion.

It can be exceedingly difficult to decipher the intentions of the authors, and most attempts are often colored by the intentions of the interpreter himself!! As Freke and Gandy put it, fire-and-brimstone types tend to see fire-and-brimstone Jesuses, Buddhists tend to see Buddhist Jesuses, liberal protestors tend to see liberal protesting Jesuses, and so on. With a tradition so culturally "loaded" as the Biblical one, it can be almost impossible to divorce these various agendas from actual scientific process.

I'd never heard that before very intresting and true.

Indeed. But, at that point, new problems arise: exactly which parts of the Bible should be read as history, and which parts should be read symbolically?? How do you tell the difference?? What is the criteria??

After all, if the "created in six days" is a metaphor or a symbol of some sort, could it not be argued that the Crucifixion and Resurrection are metaphors?? Is God a metaphor?? Heaven and Hell?? What is literal and what is symbolical??

These are all important questions to ask.

I have never questioned the Cruxifixion and resserection before in the manner you have raised. I guess this is one of those fuzzy things but something there probably is litteral.

Now here is my question. We are intepriting an interpetation right? I mean God didn't write the bible then call himself Matthew Mark Luke and John right? He (He not so much in the male sense but as is done in the bible) wrote through them is the understanding of it right? There are plenty f other undderstandings and I dunno which one is right but I wish to clarify this one for myself.
Hope that made some sense.

 

[heretic888]

I have never questioned the Cruxifixion and resserection before in the manner you have raised. I guess this is one of those fuzzy things but something there probably is litteral.

My personal opinion is that they did not occur historically, nor did Jesus exist historically. That is, though, just my take on the subject.

Now here is my question. We are intepriting an interpetation right?

Hrmmmmm..... not necessarily. It is questionable whether the Synoptics were interpretations of actual historical events, or whether they were simply "works of poetry", so to speak.

In any event, I suppose you could construe both as interpretations in the sense of either:
1) Individual interpretations of historical events, or
2) Individual intepretations of spiritual or symbolic 'events'.

I mean God didn't write the bible then call himself Matthew Mark Luke and John right? He (He not so much in the male sense but as is done in the bible) wrote through them is the understanding of it right?

That's the claim.

Laterz.

 

[Nightingale]

A question, prompted by the other thread, but I don't want to take the other thread off topic.

Isn't Jewish lineage traced through the MOTHER?? In that case, why would it matter who Jesus' father was, whether it was Joseph, God, or someone else?

Unless things were done differently back then? I don't know.

 

[heretic888]

I realize that I incorrectly referred to Jesus' human father as 'Joshua' before. My apologies for the mistake.

Isn't Jewish lineage traced through the MOTHER?? In that case, why would it matter who Jesus' father was, whether it was Joseph, God, or someone else?

Because, in Matthew and Luke, Jesus' entire claim to fame as far as the "blood of Daniel" is concerned is his patrilineal descent through Joseph. They both have very lengthy (and very different) lineages tracking this.

Then again, the fact that the Gospel authors might have missed on the matriarchal lineage in Judaism isn't any big surprise. As I demonstrated above, whoever wrote this stuff was not from Israel/Palestine and was not familiar with Jewish laws, customs, or language.

*shrugs*

 

[Cruentus]

Heretic, your approach, which is sort of Gnosis, is pretty unique in this day and age.

Mine is a little less unique, in I agree with the Catholic explaination of Jesus and the Bible. I guess where I differ is I often disagree with my church on political and behavioral issues, however, the written doctrines and research are what makes the most sense to me. I also take a more "liberal" and "tribal" approach to God as a whole.

In regards to the Gospels, the consensus in the Catholic church is that the Gospels do not go back to the first Century of the Christian Era. The words that were used to head these Gospels did not mean that they were written by "Matt" or "Mark" But rather were "drawn up according to Matt" or whoever. We don't know if these were written by individuals, or by groups following the teachings of an individual. Some believe that there were multiple authors to the Gospels. We also don't know if they were written down after an oral tradition, or if they were interpretations of other writings that we have yet to find in a complete form (although some think that we have found some evidence to "John" from 40 A.D., even though this isn't certain).

We also recognize that there are about 20 total "gospels," the 4 canonical, and 16 others. We actually don't know the precise manner in which these 4 became canonical above the others; we only know that the early church prescribed to these as the most authoritiative. This would make sense, as the 4 seem to fit more with the "Christian" interpretation over the Jewish or Gnostic, or "Heretical" (no pun intended) interpretations. We believe that the rest of the Gospels are a good read, even if they don't always fully support our view of who Jesus was.

I guess the big difference between the Catholic and Orthodox interpretation is that we believe that the "Bible" is a compelation of stories written by men inspired by God, where as most other Christian's sort of view the Bible as "the word of God" written by men. There is a big difference. God, and my consiousness and relationship with God, is my over-riding authority over everything. The Bible, the Church, the Priest, the research, etc., are all there to help me understand and deepen my relationship. Other Christians tend to view the Bible as aq "book" rather then a compilation of writings, and as an ultimate authority. I hope I am not misrepresenting my faith by saying this, but this is my take on the differences.

Anyways that's just the Catholic (or my take on the Catholic) interpretation of the Gospels, scripture, and how it all fits.

 

[Cruentus]

Then again, the fact that the Gospel authors might have missed on the matriarchal lineage in Judaism isn't any big surprise. As I demonstrated above, whoever wrote this stuff was not from Israel/Palestine and was not familiar with Jewish laws, customs, or language.

That is possible. However, as I understood it, Mary's parents were Joachim (Heli) and Anna. Joachim was a decendent of Davids as well, thus "fullfilling the scriptures" any way you look at it, if you buy this explaination anyways.

 

[heretic888]

Heretic, your approach, which is sort of Gnosis, is pretty unique in this day and age.

Thus my username.

Mine is a little less unique, in I agree with the Catholic explaination of Jesus and the Bible. I guess where I differ is I often disagree with my church on political and behavioral issues, however, the written doctrines and research are what makes the most sense to me. I also take a more "liberal" and "tribal" approach to God as a whole.

Heh. You usually don't see "liberal" and "tribal" go hand-in-hand. :uhyeah:

In regards to the Gospels, the consensus in the Catholic church is that the Gospels do not go back to the first Century of the Christian Era. The words that were used to head these Gospels did not mean that they were written by "Matt" or "Mark" But rather were "drawn up according to Matt" or whoever.

I was personally under the impression that the names chosen to signify authorship of the Gospels was determined fairly arbitrarily.

We also don't know if they were written down after an oral tradition, or if they were interpretations of other writings that we have yet to find in a complete form (although some think that we have found some evidence to "John" from 40 A.D., even though this isn't certain).

I personally doubt this. What we have found is a fragment that has verses in common with our John. Of course, when you take into account that the Synoptics share some one-third of their verses in common, this really isn't that big of a find --- and, in the end, may do more to hurt the historical antecedence of John, rather then help.

We also recognize that there are about 20 total "gospels," the 4 canonical, and 16 others.

Oh, I'd say there's a lot more than that --- there were innumerable Christian texts, many of which have not survived.

We actually don't know the precise manner in which these 4 became canonical above the others; we only know that the early church prescribed to these as the most authoritiative.

Errr... not really.

The Synoptics were chosen as 'canonical' with the Council of Nicea in 330 CE. Before that time, there is absolutely no evidence that 'the early church' prescribed to those as being the most authoritative --- in fact, Gnostic teachings by individuals such as Marcion, Basilides, and Valentinus were exponentially more popular and widespread than the so-called 'canonical' texts. The 'canonical' texts didn't seem to have much precedence outside of Rome --- which, I suspect, is the reason they were ultimately chosen.

This would make sense, as the 4 seem to fit more with the "Christian" interpretation over the Jewish or Gnostic, or "Heretical" (no pun intended) interpretations.

This, of course, begs the question as to just how close our Synoptics are to the ones canonized in 330 CE. It is already a well-known fact that Mark (the only Gospel containing the Resurrection scene) did not contain the Ressurection scene in its earliest extant forms. These were added in later. Who knows how many elements in our current Synoptics were later additions, or how much of the original were excised in those early days??

(The actual post-Crucifixion teachings of Mark's Jesus are found in the Secret Gospel of Mark, a Gnostic text. The original Mark, as far as we can tell, ends with the disciples witnessing the empty tomb in awe. There is clearly some precedence for the Secret Gospel here.)

I guess the big difference between the Catholic and Orthodox interpretation is that we believe that the "Bible" is a compelation of stories written by men inspired by God, where as most other Christian's sort of view the Bible as "the word of God" written by men. There is a big difference.

Indeed.

That is possible. However, as I understood it, Mary's parents were Joachim (Heli) and Anna. Joachim was a decendent of Davids as well, thus "fullfilling the scriptures" any way you look at it, if you buy this explaination anyways.

Which actually brings up one of the not-so-well-known incidents in the New Testament tale --- that Mary and Joseph are cross-cousins. Ewww, incest... sorta.

In any event, the above explanation aside, the Bible clearly points out the long (and contradictory) patrilineal lines at the beginning of Matthew and Luke as being "proof" of Jesus' David-hood. If this is so, however, than the Christian believer is left in a bit of a pickle in regards to the whole Virgin Birth.

Laterz.

 

[ShaolinWolf]

Just to bring up a point, since I don't want to ruin your one sided thread. Cross cousins does not mean incest. It's ok to have 5th and 6th cousins marry. Just not 1st-4th.

 

[CanuckMA]

A question, prompted by the other thread, but I don't want to take the other thread off topic.

Isn't Jewish lineage traced through the MOTHER?? In that case, why would it matter who Jesus' father was, whether it was Joseph, God, or someone else?

Unless things were done differently back then? I don't know.

Your Hallachic (Legal status) as a Jew is through the mother. Lineage (or tribal affiliation) is through the father.