Biblical Criticism.

[Logicman]

That would be fine, if you actually used SCHOLARS.

From the sources you use, that matter is debatable.

Nope, your denial is without merit. The scholars are listed in the link. Just click on the names of the books.

Is everything and everyone you support in your <ahem> "scholarship" a liberal or a hard-core Christ-denier?

Which conservative Bible scholars do you approve of?

 

[RGacky3]

1. You don't believe it. I will agree most theologists won't agree either. However, a good case has been made that yes, indeed Luke did use Josephus, which would have put the writing of it to the early second century.

You have not really addressed the case. The 'common source' argument does not address certain details of the argument.

Could you show me the argument again? Or just what parts of it are not answered by the common Source theory?

Also the theory that Luke used Josephus is so problematic for other reasons, that if the problems can be explained by the common Source theory, you'd almost certainly have to go With that, for example Luke seeming to have somewhat different information sometimes, as well as all the Things that luke left out ... James being killed, Nero's persecution and so on.

 

[RGacky3]

1. I stand by everything that I said and all my posting and my comments as mine are all accurate and true.

2. And as I have said several times already in this thread = I am the one who gives sources and references and links and quotes and detailed explanations and more, while you repeatedly give nothing but the same old pompous and baseless denials on top of more pompous and baseless denials.

3. In my view you are not being truthful to me or to your self, and you are not being true to the text or to the process or to God, so there is nothing to discuss with you, and I am disappointed by that but I will go onward anyway.


===========================================

:spin: Bump.

1. Do you stand by Your assertion that "Ho Theon" is plural for God in greek?

2. You never addressed ANY of RAMOSS' or my arguments about the use of singular case verbs and singular pronouns everytime when Yahweh talked about ... not once.

3. I don't agree With RAMOSS on probably most Things when it comes to biblical Criticism, I don't agree With ... for exmple Cable when it comes to theology on almost anything, but at least they can have a serious discussion and they actually do a little bit of Research before they post on such matters .... they actually have an idea of what they are talking about it before they open their mouth.

You're here posting theories on the grammer of the bible WITHOUT KNOWING ANYTHING ABOUT THE LANGUAGE .... and ignoring obvious obvious mistakes that you are making ...

Honestly pick any professor of theology or of Old testament or New testamenet studies, and email him Your theories on Jesus having Martha as a girlfriend, Jesus not really being dead, and the Whole plurality of Gods in Genesis or John. Please do that. Pick ANY major university and look up the professor and email him.

 

[JP Cusick]

John's probably was, but scholars date the rest as we find in the following link(s).

A Chronological Order of The New Testament Books

They were prophecies about what would happen in the future, not recording what already happen in the past. Example from your link:

Mark 13: 13 And as he (Jesus) went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!

2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Most Christians want their religion to be based on miracles and magic, but reality and truth are to be based on a more firm foundation.

Jesus told about building a house on sand - as then it is very hard to keep the house from falling over.

But if we build on a strong foundation THEN nothing can knock it down.

That is why "Biblical Criticism" relies on reality and truth and rejects the magical type of miracles.

There are some very interesting theories that the Gospels were first written as a result of the sacking of Jerusalem, because that old world was being destroyed and the Gospels are either to save that record or possibly even to change the old beliefs.

There is also another interesting point given in both Matthew and in Luke as they say things like this = "Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto." KJV. Luke 21:21

That is the only thing which tells us that there were some who escaped the sacking.

 

[RGacky3]

JP Cusick ...stop saying what "biblical criticism" says or does ... you don't speak for biblical criticism, nor do you have any Clue about what actual biblican critics, who have studied the material, actually say ...

That being said logicman vrs JP Cusick is quite a fair match

 

[RAMOSS]

Could you show me the argument again? Or just what parts of it are not answered by the common Source theory?

Also the theory that Luke used Josephus is so problematic for other reasons, that if the problems can be explained by the common Source theory, you'd almost certainly have to go With that, for example Luke seeming to have somewhat different information sometimes, as well as all the Things that luke left out ... James being killed, Nero's persecution and so on.

The problem is which details are being chosen. There is too much overlay in the details of WHICH things are being used for a common source, rather than using a common source. There is too much of an overlay with the choices of what to include to be a common source.

 

[Logicman]

Most Christians want their religion to be based on miracles and magic, but reality and truth are to be based on a more firm foundation.

Most Christians I know base their beliefs on Jesus Christ and his resurrection.

And miracles are now documented:

Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (2 Volume Set): Craig S. Keener: 9780801039522: Amazon.com: Books

Jesus told about building a house on sand - as then it is very hard to keep the house from falling over.

But if we build on a strong foundation THEN nothing can knock it down.

That is why "Biblical Criticism" relies on reality and truth and rejects the magical type of miracles.

See above.

There are some very interesting theories that the Gospels were first written as a result of the sacking of Jerusalem, because that old world was being destroyed and the Gospels are either to save that record or possibly even to change the old beliefs.

There's lots of theories, but like you said above, "Biblical Criticism" relies on reality and truth.

Jesus is Lord!

 

[JP Cusick]

1. Do you stand by Your assertion that "Ho Theon" is plural for God in greek?

Yes, and I did say that I stand by everything that I said as accurate and true.

That particular word I gave at least two links to it being plural, and I gave specific demonstration of its usage in the text and its correlation with the old Testament words, and more, while you give nothing but baseless denials.

And I really want anyone reading this to know that I mean what I say, and when I say "baseless" then I really REALLY mean that the petty denials are BASED on nothing - baseless.

2. You never addressed ANY of RAMOSS' or my arguments about the use of singular case verbs and singular pronouns everytime when Yahweh talked about ... not once.

Yes I did.

In fact I was going to list them for you but as I was rounding up the links it turned out that there were so many (at least ten times in this thread) then for me to post them again for you to see would be a fool-of-myself because you keep denying regardless of the reality which anyone can see (repeatedly) in this thread.

And (as I said) Yahweh is singular (Father God) and it was Elohim (Gods) that is plural.

Honestly pick any professor of theology or of Old testament or New testamenet studies, and email him Your theories on Jesus having Martha as a girlfriend, Jesus not really being dead, and the Whole plurality of Gods in Genesis or John. Please do that. Pick ANY major university and look up the professor and email him.

You may view Professors as having superior knowledge but I do not.

The Bible and the words of Christ tell me a much better system, as they say any person who has "eyes which see and ears that hear and a heart which understands" then there is no need of any Professor or any College degree.

What you are saying reminds me of the Pharisees and Sadducees and Lawyers who tempted and tested Jesus by saying that Jesus was unlearned and unworthy and that they controlled the fountains of wisdom and no one else was allowed.

Your claim of having some superior knowledge is NOTHING to me, and I will stick to showing the truth from the Bible just as I have repeatedly been doing from the beginning here and still doing.

 

[RGacky3]

The problem is which details are being chosen. There is too much overlay in the details of WHICH things are being used for a common source, rather than using a common source. There is too much of an overlay with the choices of what to include to be a common source.

I don't understand why that would be a problem as we have NO IDEA what the common Source is or what it says, we don't know what stuff one of them left out or both of them left out ... we do read there are significant differences in much of the common material.

BTW, we know what the writer of Luke-Acts looks like when he uses a Source, becuase we have Mark, and the common material between luke and Josephus (which is actualyl NOT that much at all), looks nothing like the copying of Mark Luke does in his gospel.

But could you show me again, what evidence there is? I don't mean just parallels, I mean parallels that cannot be explained by a common Source theory?

 

[RGacky3]

Yes, and I did say that I stand by everything that I said as accurate and true.

That particular word I gave at least two links to it being plural, and I gave specific demonstration of its usage in the text and its correlation with the old Testament words, and more, while you give nothing but baseless denials.

And I really want anyone reading this to know that I mean what I say, and when I say "baseless" then I really REALLY mean that the petty denials are BASED on nothing - baseless.


Yes I did.

In fact I was going to list them for you but as I was rounding up the links it turned out that there were so many (at least ten times in this thread) then for me to post them again for you to see would be a fool-of-myself because you keep denying regardless of the reality which anyone can see (repeatedly) in this thread.

And (as I said) Yahweh is singular (Father God) and it was Elohim (Gods) that is plural.


You may view Professors as having superior knowledge but I do not.

The Bible and the words of Christ tell me a much better system, as they say any person who has "eyes which see and ears that hear and a heart which understands" then there is no need of any Professor or any College degree.

What you are saying reminds me of the Pharisees and Sadducees and Lawyers who tempted and tested Jesus by saying that Jesus was unlearned and unworthy and that they controlled the fountains of wisdom and no one else was allowed.

Your claim of having some superior knowledge is NOTHING to me, and I will stick to showing the truth from the Bible just as I have repeatedly been doing from the beginning here and still doing.

I asked ..

"1. Do you stand by Your assertion that "Ho Theon" is plural for God in greek?"

You answered .... "Yes" ....

I think we can end the conversation here ... You're speaking to some one who reads greek ... and you saying "theon" is plural for God in greek, and then STICKING by it, when given a chance to retract it ... makes you someone NO BODY should pay attention to when it comes to biblical criticism.

ANd yes, Professors of theology, New testament and old testament studies DO know more than you, they can AT LEAST read the origional Languages and enderstand the historical context.

You made the claim that Ho Theon is plural for Theos ... and then you stuck by that claim ... That's really all anyone Reading this thread needs to know when it comes to Your opinion on biblical criticism.

 

[JP Cusick]

I asked ..

"1. Do you stand by Your assertion that "Ho Theon" is plural for God in greek?"

You answered .... "Yes" ....

I think we can end the conversation here ... You're speaking to some one who reads greek ... and you saying "theon" is plural for God in greek, and then STICKING by it, when given a chance to retract it ... makes you someone NO BODY should pay attention to when it comes to biblical criticism.

ANd yes, Professors of theology, New testament and old testament studies DO know more than you, they can AT LEAST read the origional Languages and enderstand the historical context.

You made the claim that Ho Theon is plural for Theos ... and then you stuck by that claim ... That's really all anyone Reading this thread needs to know when it comes to Your opinion on biblical criticism.

I just wish that you could see that you are making your claims without any basis.

There are some Professors of Theology somewhere who you view as knowing and of course they make your self as RIGHT too, except you are saying NOTHING of any substance here or now.

Just more pompous baseless denials.

And truly I wish that in each point that you would give some basis as then we could have a discussion - but no.

Also see quote below as an example of what it means to post a meaningful comment:

I really think that you are shut down to any discussion on this, but I must try anyway.

The New Testament writers did have some knowledge of Hebrew and they had the Septuagint which was the Hebrew old testament translated into Greek so it does matter how the 1st century Disciples of Jesus translated the Hebrew words.

The Greek words used in John 1:1-14 are as follows:

Koine Greek Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεός ἦν ὁ Λόγος.
Greek transliteration En archē ēn ho Lógos, kai ho Lógos ēn pros ton Theón, kai Theós ēn ho Lógos.
Greek to English In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (toward) the God, and God was the Word. Source Link = Wikipedia.
===

The old Greek words of "Θεόν" and Theón are plural while "Θεόc" and Theós are singular, as in plural Gods and then singular God, and that corresponds directly with the Hebrew words - plural Elohim and singular El.

The ones who have it WRONG (wrong) is the English language who claim that both the Hebrew and Greek plural names for God are singular when they are clearly and specifically plural.

What I ask you is whatever do you see God (Elohim) as being? that you reject the meaning of the words. What are you trying to preach?

Are you offended that God might be a plural? as even Father and Son are plural, so what are you trying to preach here?

For anyone who wants to know:

The above comment of mine has the references clearly given and defined, along with supporting links and specific details and more.

 

[JP Cusick]

Most Christians I know base their beliefs on Jesus Christ and his resurrection.

And miracles are now documented:

There's lots of theories, but like you said above, "Biblical Criticism" relies on reality and truth.

There is a super important point that I have learned which is that if the entire Bible is just a lie, and even if there never was any Jesus or Moses or any of it, then still God is real and living.

Miracles are things that might be or might just be misunderstood or might not exist, but the real existence of God is not dependent on miracles.

It is a mistake to view our beliefs as being the TRUTH, because the truth is not based on our beliefs.

If there is no Jesus or resurrection then God is still real anyway.

The Bible and Jesus are great sources for information and for direction, but God is not inside of the Bible.

 

[Manny]

"En archē ēn ho Lógos, kai ho Lógos ēn pros ton Theón, kai Theós ēn ho Lógos."

I've always felt that the word 'Logos' is misinterpreted here by some. The translation to 'Word' is an oversimplification, in my opinion, as Logos has many meanings. To me in this context it means more like a concept. It is the origin of words like logic, or the study of things, like geology, biology. It could be translated better as 'in the beginning was the concept', or 'In the beginning was the logic'. Maybe it means the laws of the universe... although that pure speculation. But this has a more useful meaning than simply 'Word', which some take to mean, the bible. I think the conventional thinking is that it means the bible, but there is much more to be understood from the passage if we study the meaning of the word 'Logos'.

 

[JP Cusick]

"En archē ēn ho Lógos, kai ho Lógos ēn pros ton Theón, kai Theós ēn ho Lógos."

I've always felt that the word 'Logos' is misinterpreted here by some. The translation to 'Word' is an oversimplification, in my opinion, as Logos has many meanings. To me in this context it means more like a concept. It is the origin of words like logic, or the study of things, like geology, biology. It could be translated better as 'in the beginning was the concept', or 'In the beginning was the logic'. Maybe it means the laws of the universe... although that pure speculation. But this has a more useful meaning than simply 'Word', which some take to mean, the bible. I think the conventional thinking is that it means the bible, but there is much more to be understood from the passage if we study the meaning of the word 'Logos'.

You are correct that the word "logos" being translated as "the word" is severely inadequate and inaccurate. Link here = John 1:1-15

At that time there was no "Bible" as there was only a limited supply of old testament scrolls, so the "word" or "Logos" definitely does not mean the Bible as being the word.

The term "Logos" is used as a type of verb, as an action word, and it is a long running mistake to interpret that just as a noun.

The best translation for "the word" or the "Logos" is spokesman or spokesperson or even as the speaker, as in the word is the speaker for God.

This interpretation of "spokesman" directly aligns with both the old testament and the New Testament usage, as a few of many references are demonstrated below:

1) "... the word of the Lord came unto Abram ..." Genesis 15:1 The speaker came and spoke to Abram.

2) "... the word of God came unto Shemaiah ..." 1 Kings 12:22 The speaker came and spoke to the Prophets.

3) "... they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden ..." Genesis 3:8 The "voice" was "walking" means the spokesperson was walking.

4) "... man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God." Luke 4:4 There was no Bible when Jesus was speaking.

5) "... and his name is called The Word of God." Revelations 19:13 The spokesperson's "name" is the word.

6) Lots more examples but 5 is enough.
=====

Jesus is called "the Word" because Jesus was a spokesman or speaker for God, which is what is said in John 1:1-15 (see link at top).

So you were correct in seeing that as being misinterpreted, and as an oversimplification.

 

[Manny]

This mistranslation has been an issue for me for many years, it is perhaps only one example of how the English translation fails to capture the real depth of the concept, Logos.

This Wikipedia article outlines the problem-
"Logos is an important term in philosophy, psychology, rhetoric, and religion. Originally a word meaning "a ground", "a plea", "an opinion", "an expectation", "word", "speech", "account", "to reason", it became a technical term in philosophy, beginning with Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BC), who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge.

Ancient philosophers used the term in different ways. The sophists used the term to mean discourse, and Aristotle applied the term to refer to "reasoned discourse" or "the argument" in the field of rhetoric. The Stoic philosophers identified the term with the divine animating principle pervading the Universe." (very interesting!!!)

"Early translators from Greek, like Jerome in the 4th century, were frustrated by the inadequacy of any single Latin word to convey the Logos expressed in the Gospel of John. The Vulgate Bible usage of "in principio erat verbum" (it means... "In the beginning was the ....") was thus constrained to use the perhaps inadequate noun verbum for word, but later romance language translations had the advantage of nouns such as le mot in French. Reformation translators took another approach. Martin Luther rejected Zeitwort (verb) in favor of Wort (word), for instance, although later commentators repeatedly turned to a more dynamic use involving the living word as felt by Jerome and Augustine."

A difficult word to translate into other languages, which is why I think I've always found this passage confusing, even though it is considered one of the most important passages!

1) "... the word of the Lord came unto Abram ..." Genesis 15:1 The speaker came and spoke to Abram.

2) "... the word of God came unto Shemaiah ..." 1 Kings 12:22 The speaker came and spoke to the Prophets.

3) "... they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden ..." Genesis 3:8 The "voice" was "walking" means the spokesperson was walking.

4) "... man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God." Luke 4:4 There was no Bible when Jesus was speaking.

5) "... and his name is called The Word of God." Revelations 19:13 The spokesperson's "name" is the word.

6) Lots more examples but 5 is enough.

Hm, so was the translation of these passages based on the word 'Logos'?

 

[JP Cusick]

This mistranslation has been an issue for me for many years, it is perhaps only one example of how the English translation fails to capture the real depth of the concept, Logos.

A difficult word to translate into other languages, which is why I think I've always found this passage confusing, even though it is considered one of the most important passages!

Hm, so was the translation of these passages based on the word 'Logos'?

In this case I am giving more of an interpretation and less of a translation, because I agree with (as you say) the English language being inadequate.

It is obvious in John 1:1-15 that it is referring to "the Word" as being a person, and the translations even capitalizes the "W" in Word to emphasize that it is not referring to "a word" as defined in the English language.

As such, IMO, translating the "Logos" as "the Word" or "to speak" is not enough, while translating it into "speaker" or "spokesman" aligns with the rest of the Bible.

Otherwise I agree with you that the word is confusing, and God is not the author of confusion, see 1 Corinthians 14:32-33

 

[Manny]

In this case I am giving more of an interpretation and less of a translation, because I agree with (as you say) the English language being inadequate.

It is obvious in John 1:1-15 that it is referring to "the Word" as being a person, and the translations even capitalizes the "W" in Word to emphasize that it is not referring to "a word" as defined in the English language.

As such, IMO, translating the "Logos" as "the Word" or "to speak" is not enough, while translating it into "speaker" or "spokesman" aligns with the rest of the Bible.

Otherwise I agree with you that the word is confusing, and God is not the author of confusion, see 1 Corinthians 14:32-33

Oh, you blasphemer

 

[JP Cusick]

Oh, you blasphemer

Me as a blasphemer is acceptable.

However me being a heretic feels much more fitting.


===========================================

Biblical Criticism started in earnest in 1835 with the book "Life of Jesus" by David Strauss.

In the beginning humanity was created as vegetarians eating just fruit and grain and herbs, and was NOT to eat animals.

Genesis 1:
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
===

A lot of people claim that verse 28 about have "dominion" over the animals means that they can eat the animals, but verse 29 and 30 say otherwise as having "dominion" does NOT mean that people could eat the animals.

But later things changed because humans started to sin and to do evil and started to eat the animals, and it tells in Genesis 9:1-4 that God told Noah that the people could eat the animals, but that was given because humanity was deep in sin and God just let sinful humanity to eat the animals even though life was NOT intended to be that way.

Then later in the New Testament Jesus tells us to go back to the beginning of creation to find out how to do right, see here = "...from the beginning of the creation God..." Mark 10:2-9

So if we want to know about eating animals then we do not go back to Noah but instead go all the way back to the creation where mankind were created as vegetarians.

 

[JP Cusick]

In the beginning humanity was created as vegetarians eating just fruit and grain and herbs, and was NOT to eat animals.

Genesis 1:
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
===

A lot of people claim that verse 28 about have "dominion" over the animals means that they can eat the animals, but verse 29 and 30 say otherwise as having "dominion" does NOT mean that people could eat the animals.

But later things changed because humans started to sin and to do evil and started to eat the animals, and it tells in Genesis 9:1-4 that God told Noah that the people could eat the animals, but that was given because humanity was deep in sin and God just let sinful humanity to eat the animals even though life was NOT intended to be that way.

Then later in the New Testament Jesus tells us to go back to the beginning of creation to find out how to do right, see here = "...from the beginning of the creation God..." Mark 10:2-9

So if we want to know about eating animals then we do not go back to Noah but instead go all the way back to the creation where mankind were created as vegetarians.

I just want to give a follow-up to my comment above based on the following:

Romans 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. KJV.

The fact is that most people see their self as having strong faith and they really do not know what it means.

As like if one has the faith of a mustard seed (very small) then they are to be able to move mountains and work miracles based on their strong faith, and even if we view those as metaphors then we still have mountains of problems that could be moved if anyone had that faith, and I do not know of anyone who has strong faith.

And the Bible says this too:
... "shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. ... faith without works is dead" James 2:17-20

So claiming to have strong faith when there is no work being done is thereby just nonsense.

Those who are weak in faith are vegetarians, Romans 14:1-2, and that is because being vegetarian gives strength to those who are weak, because that is going back to the original way that humanity was created - as vegetarians, Genesis 1:27-31.

People always view BIG or large as being the strong, but Jesus said about the faith being very small as like the mustard seed as being the strong in faith, and that is like the "Big Bang" or "Black Holes" in that science tells us that matter being compressed super small creates super strong gravity and stronger force by being compressed as small, and the same is the case for faith. When a person is first converted or their first FAITH then their faith is very widespread and very large, THEN as we grow wiser and more experienced then the faith becomes more compacted and much smaller, which is why faith must become very very small; in order to be strong faith, as like the kind of faith which can move mountains.

 

[Manny]

if one has the faith of a mustard seed (very small) then they are to be able to move mountains and work miracles based on their strong faith, and even if we view those as metaphors then we still have mountains of problems that could be moved if anyone had that faith, and I do not know of anyone who has strong faith.

I always thought it meant that what starts out as small, seemingly insignificant, if cultivated eventually grows to a huge tree, so that what one assumes in the beginning to be worthless, nothing, given time becomes more powerful than could be imagined.

Those who are weak in faith are vegetarians, Romans 14:1-2, and that is because being vegetarian gives strength to those who are weak, because that is going back to the original way that humanity was created - as vegetarians, Genesis 1:27-31.

But then Jesus fed the masses with loaves and fishes. Humans fell from grace, we were cast out of Eden, and it is guarded. It is a place to which we cannot return. I believe being free from sin is not possible for human beings. That is not to say, we should go and do whatever we wish, but we should pray for forgiveness and redemption. That can come through Jesus Christ, when we learn about his ways, try to imitate him, forgive others who trespass against us, so too will we be forgiven. The reasons for that are much deeper than mere words can say.

But, long story short, we are redeemed from the condemnation of the old testament, thanks to Jesus.

 

[JP Cusick]

I always thought it meant that what starts out as small, seemingly insignificant, if cultivated eventually grows to a huge tree, so that what one assumes in the beginning to be worthless, nothing, given time becomes more powerful than could be imagined.

I use to view it that way too, and I see no harm in viewing it either way or in both ways. The Bible says that the words of God cut both ways as like a two edged sword, Hebrews 4:12, so it really can work both ways as it is just a parable meant to lead people onward.

A similar example is Jesus saying that the door or the gateway is narrow and small, Matthew 7:13-14, but then I learned from Buddhism that yes the doorway is narrow and small, but as soon as one walks through that gateway THEN it open wide and big enough to hold everything and everyone.

So there are countering perspectives, as if one views their self as a small seed or as having large faith, or whether if one is going toward the narrow gate or are they at last passing through the door into the other side.

My own experiences tell me that my faith is NOT strong enough to move a mountain, so mine can not be so small as a mustard seed, and truly I do not see anyone else today having such strong faith that they can tell a mountain to move.

But then Jesus fed the masses with loaves and fishes. Humans fell from grace, we were cast out of Eden, and it is guarded. It is a place to which we cannot return. I believe being free from sin is not possible for human beings. That is not to say, we should go and do whatever we wish,

My understanding is that the original state of mankind - as in the Garden of Eden - is only guarded but not unable to be entered, Genesis 3:22-24, and it was Jesus who made it possible for any person to get through the door or the gateway or through the flaming sword.

My belief is that any person can do that, but that would take a lot of very strong faith built on top of the absolute truths.

but we should pray for forgiveness and redemption. That can come through Jesus Christ, when we learn about his ways, try to imitate him, forgive others who trespass against us, so too will we be forgiven. The reasons for that are much deeper than mere words can say.

But, long story short, we are redeemed from the condemnation of the old testament, thanks to Jesus.

:2wave: That is fine by me.

 

[Manny]

I learned from Buddhism that yes the doorway is narrow and small, but as soon as one walks through that gateway THEN it open wide and big enough to hold everything and everyone.

So there are countering perspectives, as if one views their self as a small seed or as having large faith, or whether if one is going toward the narrow gate or are they at last passing through the door into the other side.

My own experiences tell me that my faith is NOT strong enough to move a mountain, so mine can not be so small as a mustard seed, and truly I do not see anyone else today having such strong faith that they can tell a mountain to move.

There is a saying, non-Islamic in origin, that once upon a time Mohammed was asked to prove that his teachings were true. He ordered a mountain to come to him, and when it didn't move he raised his hands to heaven and said that God was merciful, because had the mountain come it would have crushed them all. He then said he would therefore go to the mountain and thank God for his mercy.

That is something like humility...

My understanding is that the original state of mankind - as in the Garden of Eden - is only guarded but not unable to be entered, Genesis 3:22-24, and it was Jesus who made it possible for any person to get through the door or the gateway or through the flaming sword.

My belief is that any person can do that, but that would take a lot of very strong faith built on top of the absolute truths.

There's no right answer, but there is something called "right", which seems elusive and requires wisdom to be able to find it, sometimes hidden in things. Hence the exasperation of atheists or those who don't have the knowledge, or how to understand things in context. That's why I don't forcefully debate people on their religious views, if they simply don't have the mental tools to understand. In zen the question was asked, can a dog know Buddha-nature.

Not that I would call someone I disagree with a dog... or even believe that they will always be the way they are. Because looking back at myself I see a younger man who was an atheist, was a christian zealot, a seeker of knowledge from eastern religions, an existentialist, etc. So all those things were steps on the way to what I am today. Don't know what I will be tomorrow.

The other thing is, it's surprising how tenuous the thread is that holds our beliefs together. Our attitudes can change completely from one moment to the next by the sudden appearance of some new thing, some fact or situation. It doesn't take much to have the rug pulled out from under you, and when that happens you find out what your foundation is really built upon. Therefor blessed are those who suffer much, and don't die.

 

[JP Cusick]

There is a saying, non-Islamic in origin, that once upon a time Mohammed was asked to prove that his teachings were true. He ordered a mountain to come to him, and when it didn't move he raised his hands to heaven and said that God was merciful, because had the mountain come it would have crushed them all. He then said he would therefore go to the mountain and thank God for his mercy.

That is something like humility...

I heard about Muhammad going to the mountain, but I had never heard that entire story before, and I like it.

Clearly "moving the mountains" are intended as a metaphor about BIGGER things and not about real mountains.

As such that makes myself as disingenuous in my last past comment when I say that I can not move mountains with my own faith.

The truth in my view is that I have had sufficient faith to move lots of big problems and obstacles in my own life, and for many reasons I feel that God is always watching over me.

But I still cling to the position that my own faith is weak, even though I do believe that my own faith is far stronger then other people have.

A wolf is stronger than an entire herd of sheep, and yet that does not really make the wolf as being strong.

 

[JP Cusick]

Biblical Criticism started in earnest in 1835 with the book "Life of Jesus" by David Strauss.

At the second Vatican Counsel 1965 the Catholic Church embraced Biblical Criticism (especial credit goes to Pope Paul VI) which was an extremely enlightened thing for them to do, link HERE.

My own view is that the Biblical Criticism shows us that huge parts of the Bible are fiction or myth, and that some parts as like Jonah being swallowed by a big fish was just a child's story as like Cinderella or King Arther are for today.

That does not make it as a lie, but the truth does tend to get trampled under foot until we learn what is false and what is true.

This is an invite for anyone familiar with the Biblical Criticism topics then we might discuss it here.

And I do intend to post a few more specific "critical" items here in due time, as like on the Synoptic Problem and the JEDP sources.

The ten (or 15) commandments are to be seen here = Exodus 20:1-20 , and again here in Deuteronomy 5:4-22

According to scholars of "Biblical Criticism" there was originally only eight commandments given by the "J source", and 4 of those 8 probably came from the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

The Sabbath Day commandment was added later by the Priestly source (the P source) and it is believed that originally it was just to remember the Passover, to keep the Passover holy, and later changed to keeping every 7th day as a sabbath.

The 1st commandment is peculiar in that we can not have other gods unless there are other gods to have, so scholars of "Biblical Criticism" determine that this was given as a division of the Hebrew God called "Yahweh" from the Egyptian gods, as in = Thou shalt not have any Egyptian gods before Yahweh - as that was the point of the 1st commandment. Then going onward with "no graven images" was another reference to and division from the Egyptian religion.

In my own view it is a mistake to view the old Egyptian religion as wrong or even as opposed to the real God, because by viewing there to be a real God then the Egyptians were God's children too.

IMO - to follow after the truth then we must go wherever the truth takes us.

 

[RGacky3]

1. I just wish that you could see that you are making your claims without any basis.

2. There are some Professors of Theology somewhere who you view as knowing and of course they make your self as RIGHT too, except you are saying NOTHING of any substance here or now.

Just more pompous baseless denials.

And truly I wish that in each point that you would give some basis as then we could have a discussion - but no.

3. Also see quote below as an example of what it means to post a meaningful comment:

1. I actually showed the greek grammer for Theos .... RAMMOS showed you the hebrew grammer around Genesis 1 and 2 ... I can read Koine Greek, RAMMOS aparently knows Hebrew grammer ... you don't know how to read either.

2. No I'm not saying there are some professors of theology, I'm saying ask ANY professor of theology, ask ANY Old or New testament scholar .... ANY OF THEM, about Your plural Gods theories ... ask ANY OF THEM about Your martha is Jesus' boyfriend theory only becuase she is listed first among 3 which Jesus "agape" loves .... or your theory about JEsus not really being dead ... ask ANY professor of thoelogy or New testament scholar ... not specific scholars, Any, from secular institutions, seminaries, atheists, catholics, evangelicals of whatever ... You won't find one that will give your plural Gods theory in Genesis and in John anything more than a laugh.

3. It isn't meaningful BECAUSE IN IT YOU HONESTLY AND SERIOUSLY CLAIM THAT THEON IS PLURAL FOR THEOS .... I mean the sentance you right might have a structure but the content is patently bull**** ... Please ... I beg you, pick a New testament scholar and email that theon is actually plural for Theos ... any scholar ... or **** anyone that KNOWS greek for that matter.