Row Over Religious War Games

[osymandus]

I am talking about the Old Testament being a good document of history. Not by any means in its entirity and that would dangerous think of all the stories contained in it being factually accruate. As you say the story of Samson is a generic tale found in Bablonian and at least one other ancient religion - can't remember which off the top of my head. The Deutro-Isiah secitons as well have many roots in pre-yhwhistic religion. The nature and understanding of what this monotheisitic God was like underwent a series of changes - and hence we have a very different OT and NT God! The OT God certainly had characteristics of several early traditions. However, I am not looking at things from a thological point of view, more a historical. The sotry of David is likely to have been written from court records and the like for example. Past the pentateuch there is lots of rich and detailed history - the rise of the Assyrians etc all the way to the Maccabean Revolution just a hundred a fifty or so years before ol' JC arrived. Yes it is written from a faith perspective addressed to those who have faith - but this is written against the background of many significant historical developements in the Middle East in a period of approx 2000 years before CE began. It helps historians as well as theologians understand the events in Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Assyria and Greece

The NT is a far less historical it seems. Some historical facts appear to have been altered in order to fit stories (such as the census) - however the over riding element of truth pervades. Archeology has confirmed many of the key aspects of stories such as the size of the boat that Jesus went fishing on was a regular size (I can't remember all the details - please forgive me!). In many instances though, and certainly until we found the DSS, it was one of the few detailed records in existence. The work of Josephus also helps qualify many of the stories in the NT too.

Theres an intresting theory on the OT about how its more a manual writen for teh intiated priesthood rather then a book for all to read . Mind you (and il try and track the sources) . Exodus , David and King Solomon (as of recent reseach don't appear as Historical figures (or the Solomaic temples) in contemporay manuscripts .

Gilgamesh (propably aside from Mar'duk) was one of the first heroic Saga's recorded (Herakleus being most likley the greek version)

NT im afraid was re-written and written again (certainly from its first latin translations (the King James being the most famous editing and edition)) . The Gospels being famous examples of interrpritation of Jeuse's message .
Il have to do a search fro some sorcures but look at the http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html .

 

[Xàbia Shrimper]

For a spoof on a current news story you certainly provoked some debate Mike !

Exactly the intention!

;)

 

[Xàbia Shrimper]

You are not alone Matt I believe in God and as for proof as Mike requested. Many times during my life I had moments of doubt and anxiety and have always found a way through God to get back on the road.

The fact is that no-one can proof that a god exists whilst no-one can prove that it doesn't.

 

[Reg Martin]

NT im afraid was re-written and written again (certainly from its first latin translations (the King James being the most famous editing and edition)) . The Gospels being famous examples of interrpritation of Jeuse's message .
Il have to do a search fro some sorcures but look at the http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html .

The rewritings you refer to such as King James Bible are in actual fact new translations into English not rewritings. These new translations are usually to reflect change of usage of language being translated into, eg, modern usage of English somewhat different from that of time of King James Bible. No significant difference of understanding of original Greek text has arisen from these new translations.
There is in fact good evidence that the New Testament we have today is very reliable as copies of have been dated back to late 1st/early 2nd century. Other non-Christian writers from same period, eg, Josephus,have also made reference to Jesus.

 

[Reg Martin]

The fact is that no-one can proof that a god exists whilst no-one can prove that it doesn't.

This begs the question what would constitute proof or disproof of God's existence.
I was an atheist until my mid 20s but I discovered this was based on false understanding of God, Church, etc and that my atheism was based on assumptions that I had not thought through.
The message of Christianity is that the decision you take in this life about who Jesus was/is will determine your eternal destiny.
This is a pretty big claim and seems to me that any sensible person should seriously examine the truth or otherwise of it before dismissing it.

 

[Cricko2]

The message of Christianity is that the decision you take in this life about who Jesus was/is will determine your eternal destiny.

Well I do not for one minute go for that Baloney......

 

[BrettieAngell]

Well I do not for one minute go for that Baloney......

me too, but besides that who actually cares what their 'eternal destiny' is?

You live and then you die as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Cricko2]

The fact is that no-one can proof that a god exists whilst no-one can prove that it doesn't.

It's all down to belief of course Mike ...Alot of people take a slice of luck, a chance meeting, fate, bad luck, good luck etc being just as it is .Now the laws of chance would state you win some you lose some...

I say there is such a thing as the certainty of chance,If you believe in yourself and a higher power guideing you.

Most of the world live in two areas ....Fear and guilt.Both are self distructive.

I think there is only one way and we all live it rearly, it is an inbuilt feeling to LOVE against all the odds......

That is God.

 

[osymandus]

The rewritings you refer to such as King James Bible are in actual fact new translations into English not rewritings. These new translations are usually to reflect change of usage of language being translated into, eg, modern usage of English somewhat different from that of time of King James Bible. No significant difference of understanding of original Greek text has arisen from these new translations.
There is in fact good evidence that the New Testament we have today is very reliable as copies of have been dated back to late 1st/early 2nd century. Other non-Christian writers from same period, eg, Josephus,have also made reference to Jesus.

The King James version was translated from NT Greek and OT Hebrew. Its alluded to that some changes we're made for poltical reasons and person (James was and is document as haveing a fear of "witches" and its of said that they shouldnt not suffer a witch to life was at his bequest (Biblical scholars says its orginal meaning is to do with not allwoing prisnoners to live). Modern NT comes from the Textus Receptus. However the accusation is normaly mis translation not (always)a diliberate attempt to decieve .
NT certainly was 1st/2nd Century (the ealriest Gospel is about 60AD ) 60 years after the death of Jesus the first book was written
(more on KJ Bible btw http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version)

Josephus is a disputed source "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Testimonium_Flavianum" While contemporey theres not a great deal he siad and it seems more what he didnt say .

The problem historians have pointed out is the objective authenticitey of sources that were of benifit to the first Holy Roman Empire thne the Catholic church . They we're the victors and persuicutors (as have all the orthodoex organisations been ) to ensure theirs was the one true " as dicated by sadly some rather corrupt officals and popes of their time (Pope Baucher anyone (father of Lacreha Baucher)).

The teachings of Jesus are not in dispute as neitehr are those of John the Baptist Simon Maguss, Krishna , Moses, Mohammed, Siddartha etc. However what seems to have cuase the problems is the different views and itepretations of their succesors . All previous prophets whould have possible pointed out the follow of trying to follow them and not knowinig your own place within the universe /God or Tao et al

 

[osymandus]

I think there is only one way and we all live it rearly, it is an inbuilt feeling to LOVE against all the odds......

That is God.

As two wise men once said
"God exisits in the heart of all men " Siddartha
"Love is the law , Love under will" Aleistar Crowley (said as in Holy)

Firstly we must know whats in our hearts and take respoinsibilty for our own actions .

 

[Xàbia Shrimper]

The message of Christianity is that the decision you take in this life about who Jesus was/is will determine your eternal destiny.

Bollocks - I control my own destiny, regardless of whether or not I believe in a fictional character from a 2,000 year old novel.

 

[Firestorm]

I basically feel that all religions are a varation on the same theme (Some, ie scientology are a bit daft) so I don't think that I am intellegent enough to choose one and damn the rest. In my mind its all about comfort and reassurance, if you need the reassurance of a better place after death to get through life, or to give your life a meaning then fine, me, I reckon that if we all used our time here to make life better for everyone else and for those still to come then we would all be living in a far better place.
As for looking out for yourself, again, fine, as long as its not at the expense of others. But looking out for , the higher being all religions have doesn't wear for me. If one being could look out for him/herself,I would put my money on the one person who made the whole feckin lot in the first place !!

 

[osymandus]

Bollocks - I control my own destiny, regardless of whether or not I believe in a fictional character from a 2,000 year old novel.

That is teh message of Christianity weather you agree or not (mind you i agree with you personaly (or my own beliefs ))

 

[osymandus]

I basically feel that all religions are a varation on the same theme (Some, ie scientology are a bit daft) so I don't think that I am intellegent enough to choose one and damn the rest. In my mind its all about comfort and reassurance, if you need the reassurance of a better place after death to get through life, or to give your life a meaning then fine, me, I reckon that if we all used our time here to make life better for everyone else and for those still to come then we would all be living in a far better place.
As for looking out for yourself, again, fine, as long as its not at the expense of others. But looking out for , the higher being all religions have doesn't wear for me. If one being could look out for him/herself,I would put my money on the one person who made the whole feckin lot in the first place !!

Then your relgion is just live , as pointed out before relgion is just binding yourself to a "higher" meaning being ideal etc . Make things better for better . Its just the various methodologies that assist this (yoga from Sikhism , meditation from Hinduishm/Buddishm , Jam making from Church of England,) its all vital :D

 

[Reg Martin]

It's all down to belief of course Mike ...Alot of people take a slice of luck, a chance meeting, fate, bad luck, good luck etc being just as it is .Now the laws of chance would state you win some you lose some...

I say there is such a thing as the certainty of chance,If you believe in yourself and a higher power guideing you.

Most of the world live in two areas ....Fear and guilt.Both are self distructive.

I think there is only one way and we all live it rearly, it is an inbuilt feeling to LOVE against all the odds......

That is God.

As someone once said," Well I do not for one minute go for that Baloney......" ;)