Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 07-03-2008, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Nonsense. All texts have to be interpreted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Who do I get to interpret your post?

It's a trivial exercise. I'm sure you can manage it yourself

ohmi · 07-05-2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Jesus was a Jew who did not depart from his way, truth and life in Judaism

His Jewishness was never disputed, but his adherence to Judaism was questioned by some of his contemporaries.

Jesus himself criticised Judaism many times because it has already departed from the Law of God by the time he came ... the departure is even clearer today :

Most Jews do not even recognise the new covenant given by their own prophet, Jeremiah [Jer 31:31-34] ,nor do the recognise the idol-worshiping House of Israel as being Israelite by birth.

storytime · 07-05-2008, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Lets see if I can understand your point more clearly. It's all private interpretations coming from each prophet?. Therein lies no single interpretation? This would then seem to apply to the next verses (1Pet.1:21 and 2:1) where it says "For the prophecy came not at any time by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." And then this verse "But.. there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who secretly shall bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord that brought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction."

This admonition is to be alert to false teaching as many prophets had many interpretations in the older days and had been exposed in their false sayings.

Wasn't this the reason for prophecy being condemned(caused to cease, silenced) in the OT? For no man could tell the future,(Ye have seen nothing!") and were deemed as "dreamers of dreams"? Liars? I'm getting a little ahead of myself here, but wouldn't Peter be judged as a false prophet in his vision[dream] from a roof top?

Many analysis's of the meaning of 2 Peter 1:21-22 are readily available online as the correct interpretation of these passages has been extensively discussed.
Personally, I am persuaded that its sense is most accurately rendered as

Quote:

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private origination,
For the prophecy in old time came not by the will of man: but Holy men of God spoke [as they were] moved (inspired) by the Holy Spirit.

The idea that individuals were or are are barred from personally and individually interpreting Scripture is mistaken. But that is the "interpretation" that the old "Orthodox" Church's succeeded in foisting off upon the gullible for a long time; "Don't think! WE will tell you what to think. Our authority is absolute, Do not presume to question the accuracy of our interpretations, Do as we say or else!

A primitive moral compass in "orthodox" belief that the uneducated needed guidance? (Rules to live by) Setting behavior patterns for the purpose of civil order (control) to prolong life instead of needless death?

Before there was law for Israel, it was said that every man did that which was right in his own eyes. (His private interpretation of "good" compared to how he viewed "evil"). But then when law was given to rule over the nation of Israel, private interpretation went out the window as "orthodox" standards of law took hold.

The priests were the "mouth" of God who interpreted the law in judgment of matters brought before them by the people. The High Priest ruling was the final authority in judgment of a matter.

With Christianity(gentiles), there is no law applied because no laws were ever given to non Israelite people. This then leaves the Gentiles to judge themselves by their own perceived standards. Their moral compass being "love thy neighbor as thyself". One would think Gentiles would have learned to interpret this standard of "life" by now.

storytime · 07-05-2008, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

From the story, I would have to conclude the true identity of "Christian" would be as Jesus said, those who obey his command to follow him.

He said that? He said his followers, and only his followers, were to be known as Christians?

His Jewishness was never disputed, but his adherence to Judaism was questioned by some of his contemporaries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Unless you want to think that Jesus was teaching a non Jewish doctrine.

The gospels do not make it least bit clear what sort of doctrine he was teaching.

In the story, those who followed Jesus were Jews who believed Jesus was anointed[Christ]. Law prohibited uncircumcised and lawless Gentiles from being his disciples(students). Paul seemed to have changed the rules.

In the story, several sects of Jews are seen in Pharisees, Sadducees and Elders. Jesus debated with these on matters of law. For example, the way the Pharisees had learned their law of marriage and divorce was in error. Jesus objected on the basis of "two shall become one flesh" until death. He believed "the putting away" of one's spouse was prohibited while the spouse was yet alive. (Except it be for fornication). Another example is John the Baptist who confronted Herod in his sin of having his brother Philip's wife while Philip was yet alive. Not liking the law thrown in the face of their sin, Herods co-partner, Herodius(?), perceived a way to place John's head on a platter. So John was put in prison for the word of the Lord and beheaded.

So, if you don't see Jesus as teaching a doctrine of Jews, then what other teaching would you imagine he to be representing? He wasn't in Rome teaching Zeusiology, nor was he in Egypt teaching the doctrine of Pharoah's.

storytime · 07-05-2008, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohmi

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Jesus was a Jew who did not depart from his way, truth and life in Judaism

Jesus is indeed a Jew , of the tribe of Judah, and indeed supported the OT scriptures, but he heavily criticised Judaism as having moved away from the Law of Love , as does the OT itself .

The new covenant with Israel's two Houses is found in the OT in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and is clearly stated to be with the Jews [House of Judah] and the [lost, paganised ] House of Israel. [thus showing that modern 'christianity' has a provably false interpretation of the new covenant and thus a false 'gospel']

Agreed. Which character do you see as the one first changing the law of God, Peter or Paul?

storytime · 07-05-2008, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Well, it is all about money, isn't it.

While perhaps not totally, but it has always been a major factor. There was that rampant greed that so infected the Church of Rome, leading to generations of wars, conquests, and plundering in the name of Christ.
While here and today in "The Bible Belt", it appears, the greater the poverty, the more numerous the churches.
When poor families cannot earn enough to live on they tend to get real "spiritual", open up yet another "church" and get out that 'ol collection plate.
Some times it becomes down-right silly (or it would be if it weren't so pathetic) as in my little four-stoplight community where over fifty little church's vie for a piece of the pie.

Don't forget the rampant greed of the Jerusalem zealots and in which Peter killed a husband and wife for not giving all they owned to the church of Peter. God kills those who hold back money. :devil1: Just listen to tadays televangelists in their "prosperity" preaching. It isn't funny though when considering how little old ladies are scared enough to give up their SS checks to such lying scoundrels who build their fortunes on the poverty stricken.

ohmi · 07-05-2008, 08:56 PM

Acts 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

Death is the only possible way out left for those who lie to God, a new opportunity in a new life after resurrection [to the righteous new earth] :-

Romans 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

storytime · 07-06-2008, 12:19 AM

Ok, what about the part where the land was not owned, it being merely possessed, thus it was not to be sold? So was Peter lying? By what authority did Peter receive money from land sold that Ananias did not own?

Only those to whom the law was given could sin[transgress] against their laws, namely the Jewish people.

Doug Shaver · 07-06-2008, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Paul seemed to have changed the rules.

He didn't seem to think so. He seemed to think he was just interpreting them better than the folks running the Jerusalem church.

Sheshbazzar · 07-06-2008, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

While perhaps not totally, but it has always been a major factor. There was that rampant greed that so infected the Church of Rome, leading to generations of wars, conquests, and plundering in the name of Christ.
While here and today in "The Bible Belt", it appears, the greater the poverty, the more numerous the churches.
When poor families cannot earn enough to live on they tend to get real "spiritual", open up yet another "church" and get out that 'ol collection plate.
Some times it becomes down-right silly (or it would be if it weren't so pathetic) as in my little four-stoplight community where over fifty little church's vie for a piece of the pie.

Don't forget the rampant greed of the Jerusalem zealots and in which Peter killed a husband and wife for not giving all they owned to the church of Peter. God kills those who hold back money. :devil1: Just listen to tadays televangelists in their "prosperity" preaching. It isn't funny though when considering how little old ladies are scared enough to give up their SS checks to such lying scoundrels who build their fortunes on the poverty stricken.

Oh, I most certainly haven't forgotten that part,
Here are a couple of my posts from the thread
"The questionable story of Ananias and Sapphira "

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The henchmen of "The Gawd Father" set up shop and got themselves into the "protection" business, to "protect" the "membership" from having some real "bad" things happen to them.
But "membership" wasn't free, not by a long shot, as it required the turning over of everything that was owned, to The Gawd Father's "business associates".

When Pete and his gang of young thugs detected that Ananias and Sapphira had tried to hold out against their demands, they decided to make an example out of them, so that all the others would hear about it and would learn to "fear", and to pay up whatever amount of "protection money" they demanded, and learn not to fuck with The Gawd Father's boys.
How amazing is it that both Ananias and his wife should have something really "bad" happen to them right while they were attending a "business meeting" with Pete and the boys?
The moral of the story is obvious; Capice? everyone capice? We "collect", you PAY, Capice?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

That wasn't "tithing" or "free will offerings", that was outright extortion plain and simple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Just another story calculated by the religious authorities, to put "The Fear of Gawd" into the flock, and of course terrorise them into giving more.
And you can bet your bottom dollar, that if it was based upon any real event in the early church, that it wasn't an invisible incorporeal Being that did the killing.
Religion has always had its Divine "agents", of flesh and blood to carry out the dirty deeds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

You really missed the point 'hitman, the story of Ananias and Sapphira WAS NOT about "tithing", Peter and his "young men" were demanding not a "tithe"- but 100%!
That goes way beyond providing for any churches "basic needs".
And when such a demand is presented in such a context that leaves an implicated threat of death to others also, that is known as "extortion by threat".

They may have been wrong to lie about how much money they had recieved from their sale, but it was their own money that was in question.
And that is a very minor matter for a church or its "god", to use as an excuse or justification for committing a double homicide, and then, additionally using these deaths as an "example" to terrorise all the other church "members" into forking over whatever amounts Peter and his gang demanded. IS terroristic extortion.

You can try to "whitewash" it all you want, but the story gives plenty enough detail to determine what was really going on.
Any ministry that tried to get away with this type of extortion and furnish such lame evidence and excuse today, would be tried and rightly convicted of extortion and murder.
And yes, some so called "Christian ministries" still attempt to employ such extortion tactics on their victims...'er, "members".
After all, it IS in their Training Manual.

I think this should make my opinions on this matter quite clear.
This subject has been discussed many times before, in multiple threads. The elements of story haven't changed, and no one has brought anything new into the discussion of the subject.

07-05-2008, 08:56 PM	#77
ohmi Banned Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Roaming a wilderness that some think is real ... Posts: 1,125	Do not confuse modern religion of sinners with the faith of the Hebrew saints Acts 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. Death is the only possible way out left for those who lie to God, a new opportunity in a new life after resurrection [to the righteous new earth] :- Romans 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin. 2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-06-2008, 12:19 AM	#78
storytime Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 2,608	Ok, what about the part where the land was not owned, it being merely possessed, thus it was not to be sold? So was Peter lying? By what authority did Peter receive money from land sold that Ananias did not own? Only those to whom the law was given could sin[transgress] against their laws, namely the Jewish people.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.