JohnG

Oh, I agree completely, and kudos to you for being astute enough to learn Hebrew to find out what the fuss was really about. My family (Jewish) never influenced my beliefs and I read too much biology and natural science as a youth to follow that path.

When discussing hidden meanings, underlying messages, metaphor, linguistic nuance relating to biblical study, it would seem that it is nearly impossible when using translated copies of edited copies of edited copies of another translation.

Even when discussing something as simple as the soul, the english OTs and NTs use the same word, but they mean two completely different things to the original writers.

How can we discuss the hidden meaning of a parable without knowing what the original intent was?

reniaa

I would have no problem with this answer if I didn't know that having democratically elected leaders still leads to the same atrocities and conflicts especially when you have apposing countries.

America is a good example of this as they have been a "free" people for a long time but when it comes to war can be as ruthless as the next country soo

If a country has a leader as admittedly bad as saddam is it ok to go in and cause many deaths of both innocent and guilty? you could argue that the ones that are guilty are just non-believers in america as saddam in no way attacked america before the war was declared, their only sin was an a/ imagined threat, b/ ill-treatment of their own people.

Atm the people fighting americans in iraq are themselves thinking they are resisting tyrany, isn't it all amatter of perspective from one side to the other?

You say saddam commited attrosities but hasn't america i,e guantanamo bay

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantan...detention_camp

My final point being that any group that apposes any leader are in a position of danger, with or without having done anything, many of the detainees in the bay are only suspects with no proof against them. I'm only using this as an example i'm sure I could find equal examples from any country but thats my point!

reniaa

this is a strawman arguement...I don't believe any work of fiction but then I consider the bible an historical document and not to be confused with acknowledged works of fiction...show me the authors notes saying they wrote it as a piece of fiction please?

Dogfish

But you are just putting arbitrary labels on things to suit your purpose. Sharpe's novels have easily as much history as the bible does. To say one is fiction and the other history. And if Cormwell didn't label his books as fiction, would they automatically be considered history? The main event that take pace in the books are all comfirmable historic events, as well as the technology of the age. Napoleon and Wellington existed. How is that any different?

reniaa

I've discussed before the difference between the bible and the fiction works others compare it to.

fiction - acknowledged by the author as fiction, while it uses historical people and places with as much background info as can be gathered, it lacks detail of the everyday living practices of the people in that time and usually involves glaring historical errors like camels or elephants in place/time they shouldn't be, Other people around the writer confirm it is a work of fiction too.

Bible - written by multiple authors that all attest to it's authenticity not one saying it's fiction. it has confirmable historic figures that actually lived but not just famous ones but obscure everyday people i.e, scribes and such-like. Practises of the times/places mentioned are extremely accurate that even historians acknowledge the writers must have been where they wrote about. Other people other than the authors living at the times it was written also confirm it authenticity.

Even reading the bible it is completely different reading from an fictional novel, in what novel would you get reams of data on peoples ancestry and prices of slaves etc.

You say I AM putting abititary labels but I say you are because the bible just doesn't fit accepted parameters of fiction work. I have read many historical fiction works and the bible simply just fit with them, it is unique and I bet even atheists or agnostics who have read it would agree with me on that point.

makerowner

I don't support the Iraq War, and I don't think anyone on here is trying to argue that the US is perfect. But we can compare how modern Western democracies work to the way rulers in the 1st century AD worked, and our guys look pretty good. Back then, massacring or enslaving populations captured in war was the norm, today if an American soldier kills a few Iraqi civilians there'll be an investigation. Back then, people could be executed on the whim of a ruler, now there is due process for criminals to be executed. Again, I'm not saying that any of these things works perfectly now, I'm saying they work a lot better than they did in the 1st century. So why does Jesus portray himself as a 1st century ruler, with all the barbarity that entails? If he were an omniscient god, he would have been able to see the political realities of the distant future and teach democracy rather than tyranny. But if he were just a man, a product of his times, we would expect exactly what we have.

Sheshbazzar

Anything can be bent around a corner. My reply was with respect to how any people or nation govern themselves, or submit themselves to tyrannical "over-lording" governments operating under false claims of a "Divine right" to rule over, to terrorise, and to oppress a defenseless populace.
No, reniaa, while America may have its faults, your claim that our "democratically elected leaders still leads to the same atrocities and conflicts " is insupportable. (I realise that you qualified the statement with "...especially when you have apposing countries.")
International relations, and alleged "ruthlesness in war", however, is not what is under consideration, but rather how the government of any particuar nation treats its own populace.
Unlike many of these oppressive regimes, there are no pictures of our democratically elected leaders lining up large groups of our own citizens to publicly abuse them, pistol whip them, and then while they are kneeling, put guns to their heads and blow their brains out in front of their families.
We don't have hundreds of unmarked mass graves where our democratically elected leaders attempt to conceal the evidence of their "political methods".
No, reniaa, not the same at all.
Again, this is a matter of International relations and war, not (primarily) a matter of domestic tranquility.
Everyone has a political opinion, and all are free to take whatever side they want in free and open political debate.

and <snip>
Again a matter of International relations, and of the treatment of prisoners of war, and of persons suspect of plotting acts of domestic terrorism, against THE PEOPLE.
Any government that is "FOR THE PEOPLE" and is instituted for "the common good of the people" would be remiss, and be derelict in its duties to "THE PEOPLE" if it did not seperate and confine such notorious threats to the welfare of the people.
We the people of The United States of America have authorised our leaders to take such measures as are deemed necessary in the protection of our citizens from all threats both foreign and domestic.
The Guantanamo Military Prison detainees are not there for their opposition to our leader(s), or for their political opinions, they are being held there because they constitute an ongoing threat and danger to free nations everywhere.
We have tens of thousands of citizens that hold the same political opinions, yet freely walk our streets and express their political views and their opinions of our leader(s).
We may sometimes find their opinions, their vehemence, and their ignorance to be very offensive, (more often just pitiful) but yet we tolerate them. Unless we find a just cause to suspect that they actually are plotting to, or are engaging in some ACT of domestic terrorism.
No one, of any nationality, that comes to America, that seeks to live in peace among a peaceful people, and that "keeps their nose clean" has anything to fear from oppression by, or mistreatment by our government.
However, if one arrives here from a country inimical to the concepts of freedom, seeking opportunities to cause domestic troubles and to instigate acts of domestic terrorism, that seeks out and fraternises with such groups as advocate the overthrow of America, Then that person ought to expect to be suspected.
Most of the detainees in the Guantanamo Military Prison are there, not because they smiled politely, but because they were flagrantly anti-American and associated with, and were supported by regimes advocating the destruction of these United States by any means.


"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

Come now, "mass executions" of entire countries while the conquering "King" and his sycophants stand by observing and gloating over his power?
NOT "NICE" AT ALL, only sick, sick, sick. maybe appropriate for a "Bronze Age" tyrannical king, but hardly a healthy wish and desire by any civilised person for the future of mankind.

WVIncagold

[QUOTE=WishboneDawn;5138522]I don't know i wasn't there were you? You mean those Jewish people who converted to Christianity because they no longer wanted to live under the mantel of orthodox Judaism. the ones who started to believe Jesus was the son of Yahweh? Oh ya isn't Yahweh the Jewish god? Thanks for making my point. Call it what you want is the Jewish god Yahweh claimed to be the father of Jesus Christ?


ummm didn't twelve misfits and a prostitute believe Jesus was the son of Yahweh? was there not a cult formed called the mezzanines Christ worshipers called Christians that Rome was worried about? Who needs a fully formed religion when you get to sit with the son of god!

by whom? Christian apologetics? So these were people who could not mix a kid meat with the milk of its mother but then again could? were they they the shellfish pork eating non eating pork and shellfish people? WTF?:huh:



in biblical time nations were considered race. they did not have the understanding of what a race actually is. so in ancient times again Jews were a race so was the Babylonians and the Egyptians. we know different now,


Precisely what does this have to do with the fact that Christians stole the idea of Yahweh and manipulated it for there own devices, adding there own messiah and ignoring the laws Yahweh gave his people?

Wow appeal to higher authority. Oh by the way i refer to my Friends only to give a view how modern Jews joke about Christians it is in no way reference meant as authority. Keep telling yourself the Christians didn't steal the Jewish god and give him a kinder gentler makeover. Oh next time you open your bible just skip all over those first parts called the OT since Christians in no way need that part. Oh wait there is the whole thing that Yahweh would send a messiah. Christians STOLE the god Yahweh form the Jewish and gave him a makeover. if not throw out the OT. but then the NT makes less creationism.

Dogfish

I still don't see any objective difference. There is plenty of description of everyday living practices in the Sharpe's novels. There are no glaring historical errors that I can find in them , but there are plenty in the bible. Who are the people around the authors of The Illiad and The Odyessy who confirm it is fiction? Maybe, only because of it's age, there are no existing works of writers of that age who claim it is fiction/ Maybe, because when x-ianity took hold, people were killed and books were destroyed that said anything contradictory? As far as historians acknowledging the bibles accuracy, you surely don't believe that if they disagree, they're not good historians. Because I would venture to guess most historians( if they are objective) see the errors of historicity in it and deem it pretty much hit-and-miss.
If an historical novel were found that the author posed as a narrative and there was no record of his calling it fiction, and it mentioned a number of known-true events, would you believe it until it could be absolutly proven fiction? I doubt you would. But you do with the bible. Not for reasons that have objective, historical verification, but because it makes you feel good to believe. That's been evident in your past posts. It's an emotional attachment, not a need for logic and coherency. You claim historians agree that the bible is historically accurate, but gloss over the mountain of inaccuracies pointed out. You accept the testimony that fits your belief (sometimes rationalizing it to the point of incredulity), but will automatically put any criticism of it beneath the words of believers. It's fine to believe in something because it makes you feel good, just be honest about it. Don't claim your belief as objective truth.

Jane H

I’m sorry- there is a substantial and lengthy debate to be had, another time, on whether Jesus or Paul first changed the purity codes. The issue is gone over in the heaviest possible detail in the 450 pages of David Wenham’s "Paul- Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk)". I can also recommend it as a first class cure for insomnia.

As for the specific nature of the messianic prophecies- I’m sure you’re as aware as anyone that modern scholarship has made it quite clear that there was no uniform messianic expectation amongst C1 Jews. Most of the relevant literature of the period avoids the theme; when it is dealt with, it is very diverse. As regards the OT promises about Israel’s restoration, these contained a great deal of ambiguity. The Day of the Lord was the end of exile, but, by contrast, a terrible day of suffering. God would destroy the nations who opposed Him (Is 34:2), yet the Jews would be a ‘light to the nations’ (Is 42:6). There was a suffering servant, and a majestic King, both linked somehow to these promises…

Then, rather like a plot twist in a top thriller, the story went in a completely unexpected direction- not in contradiction to the story that had been established, but giving the material a devastatingly different aspect. Think along the lines of the appearance of the willy in the Crying Game. We never saw it coming, but it didn’t contradict the previous script.

Concerning “Converts to what?” “converts to Paul’s gospel”- we both agree that’s what Paul wanted! But that wasn’t my line: “Converts to what? A fake religion that betrayed his heritage, his race and his God? Motivation? To get beaten up in the most horrendous ways and ultimately killed for this fake religion? Even if you can get past that, you’ve still got the disciples who could, and would, have stopped Paul from all this gentile loving betrayal nonsense.”