Talking Religion...

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

What you are doing here is purposely limiting the scope and adaptibility of language to suit your argument against the consistency of the Bible, but you are quite wrong in saying that metaphor is by definition not literal. I provided you with two applicable definitions of the word "gate", one more physically literal and the other more metaphysical, but both are quite literal readings of the word, as is any widely accepted/used sense of a word. Does the possibility of multiple meanings open the door (there's another metaphor that can be read literally without having to reference a physical hinged object) to misreadings or competing interpretations? Of course. But by insisting on a too-literal reading you are intentionally stripping away the clear and intended message according to your own bias.

I agree with you that a metaphor is a way of describing something.. conveying an idea.. I also concede that the "intended" meaning may as well be "literal" But, as you mention, when employing a metaphor you do leave open the possibility of mistranslation of meaning, whereas a more direct manner of speech may have been better.

Bgrad - on the issue of him saying "Before Abraham was I am" does not necessarily mean he's calling himself G-d, but instead was saying before Abraham was G-d (who refers to Himself to Moses as "I am") Now, I admit it doesn't have to be understood as I'm proposing, but likewise I don't know that it's as clear as you suggest either. I know you'll talk about context, and truth is, I'm posting and running here, without looking too deeply at the issue... was just raising the talking point, is all.

 

[BayBuck]

I agree with you that a metaphor is a way of describing something.. conveying an idea.. I also concede that the "intended" meaning may as well be "literal" But, as you mention, when employing a metaphor you do leave open the possibility of mistranslation of meaning, whereas a more direct manner of speech may have been better.

That is very true, and I'm sure many people, even devout believers, have wondered why such a crucial message could be left so open to interpretation: we humans might have avoided a lot of trouble these late millenia if things were more clear-cut. Maybe God's just more artist than scientist...

 

[buckeyegrad]

Bgrad - on the issue of him saying "Before Abraham was I am" does not necessarily mean he's calling himself G-d, but instead was saying before Abraham was G-d (who refers to Himself to Moses as "I am") Now, I admit it doesn't have to be understood as I'm proposing, but likewise I don't know that it's as clear as you suggest either. I know you'll talk about context, and truth is, I'm posting and running here, without looking too deeply at the issue... was just raising the talking point, is all.

And context is important, because Jesus' answer in which he says I AM is to the direct question by the Jews of how it was possible for him to have known Abraham. As they said, Jesus was not even over 50 years of age.

That it was understood by all that Jesus was claiming to be God can be seen in the Jews' reaction to stone him. If he was simply claiming that I AM was before Abraham, then there would have been no reason to stone him as every Jew would agree to that.

 

[Bleed S & G]

And context is important, because Jesus' answer in which he says I AM is to the direct question by the Jews of how it was possible for him to have known Abraham. As they said, Jesus was not even over 50 years of age.

That it was understood by all that Jesus was claiming to be God can be seen in the Jews' reaction to stone him. If he was simply claiming that I AM was before Abraham, then there would have been no reason to stone him as every Jew would agree to that.

The answer I'm going to proivde to the "I AM" is complicated, silly, scary, and real..

When God made man in his image, he gave us the power to create. To manifest.

That is why things like placebo's - going to the moon - healings from Jesus ("it is your faith that has cured you") happen.

Our mind is so much more powerful then we recognize. That is why Religion is the ultimate form of control and power. It makes us look outside for God, instead of within.

When God called himself I AM to Moses, was Moses hearing an audible voice, or a voice within himself?

The Mayans whole deal with the end of ages (Tower of Babel, Noahs Flood, 2012) the next age to end is 2012, age of pieces - or fish. The Jesus Fish.

In the next age, man is prohopized to recongize that God dwells within himself. Peace will ensue. Revelation deals with the same thing.

What I propose, is Jesus attained a certain level of spirtuality or was selected by the Spirit - much like Moses - to carry out a mission.

I think any of us may attain such a level of spirtual enlightment and happiness, or "paradise", by living in the path of Jesus.. with love.

When Jesus said I AM - it was much like Moses. The meaning, IMO, is that Jesus and Moses were one with the Spirit of God. The Spirit that is inside of every living thing on this planet (more of a Native American idea). When the LORD breathed the breath of life - it went into everything on this planet.

Again, this stuff is out there, and a collection of the Worlds faiths.. it may not be coming out of mind right.. I really should try to write some of these thoughts down sometime.

 

[buckeyegrad]

The answer I'm going to proivde to the "I AM" is complicated, silly, scary, and real..

When God made man in his image, he gave us the power to create. To manifest.

That is why things like placebo's - going to the moon - healings from Jesus ("it is your faith that has cured you") happen.

Our mind is so much more powerful then we recognize. That is why Religion is the ultimate form of control and power. It makes us look outside for God, instead of within.

When God called himself I AM to Moses, was Moses hearing an audible voice, or a voice within himself?

The Mayans whole deal with the end of ages (Tower of Babel, Noahs Flood, 2012) the next age to end is 2012, age of pieces - or fish. The Jesus Fish.

In the next age, man is prohopized to recongize that God dwells within himself. Peace will ensue. Revelation deals with the same thing.

What I propose, is Jesus attained a certain level of spirtuality or was selected by the Spirit - much like Moses - to carry out a mission.

I think any of us may attain such a level of spirtual enlightment and happiness, or "paradise", by living in the path of Jesus.. with love.

When Jesus said I AM - it was much like Moses. The meaning, IMO, is that Jesus and Moses were one with the Spirit of God. The Spirit that is inside of every living thing on this planet (more of a Native American idea). When the LORD breathed the breath of life - it went into everything on this planet.

Again, this stuff is out there, and a collection of the Worlds faiths.. it may not be coming out of mind right.. I really should try to write some of these thoughts down sometime.

Would you describe yourself as a neo-gnostic then?

 

[Gatorubet]

Would you describe yourself as a neo-gnostic then?

Not quite aeons of Barbalo, but......

 

[Bleed S & G]

Would you describe yourself as a neo-gnostic then?

I would describe myself as weird.

 

[DontHateOState]

1. The God of Abraham is the God of the Qu'ran, Old Testament, and New Testament. By extension, He is the God of roughly 55% of the world's population. Judaism and Islam follow an interesting diverted path from Abraham while, obviously, Christianity's diversion is clear.

2. Jesus Christ historicity is strong. This is a separate discussion from the divinity question.

From the Bible to the Qu'ran, there is spiritual evidence written in the books, but the other historical documents proclaiming his existence are numerous and mostly valid.

From Tacitus:

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...

From Flavius Josephus circa 30-90 AD:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

These are just two examples; many more exist and further prove the historicity. What is almost undeniably accepted by Biblical scholars, ancient scholars, etc., is Jesus role as a virtuous man and teacher.

3. No man who ever lived has ever had an impact as great as Jesus Christ. This is undebatable, whether you are a Christian or not. Our time system is based after him, Christianity is the most popular religion by about 600 million people, history has been forever changed by his existence, and his word was good- he taught great things.

I want to address that "Sun god" = "Son of God" theory at some point, but I am lacking the time right now.

 

[Ttown]

No brainer to me, If you have the faith to believe in God then the proof is there. And if you don't then you don't.

 

[Bleed S & G]

No brainer to me, If you have the faith to believe in God then the proof is there. And if you don't then you don't.

What?

 

[Gatorubet]

No brainer to me, If you have the faith to believe in God then the proof is there. And if you don't then you don't.

I wouldn't say "proof" per se, but faith can be enough for many. I mean, if Faith is proof then David Koresh is the Messiah and Joseph Smith received Golden Tablets from God and learned that God was once a man, and that Thump can become a God on another planet if he gets with the LDS program. People believe it. Strongly. Through Faith.

So Faith is not proof to me, as many religions of different flavors have followers who are filled with Faith, and yet I deny the proof of their theology despite recognition of true, sincere beliefs by people of Faith.

I daresay there were plenty of people who did not miss a day worshiping Mithra with all of their heart.

Not trying to be rude here Cyrus, but to me proof is something entirely different.

 

[JimsSweaterVest]

What is your interpretation of the following verses then?

Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. (John 8:55-59)

If Jesus was not declaring himself to be God by saying that he was "before Abraham" (who existed c. 1800 years before Jesus) and that he was "I am", then what exactly was he saying.

I believe this passage was discussed by Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus. In brief, the Gospel of John is the least reliable historically, among the 4, as to what the actual Jesus said and did. I'll get some more info later if you guys like.

Do you realize how laughable these claims are to legitimate scholars, both secular and religious, in the fields of Biblical scholarship and Christian history.

Yeah I was close to laying into him for that post, but feared he may have a connection to Our Father (DaddyBigBucks) or His Chosen One (jwinslow) and have me banned or - worse - McKneeled.

Jim is taking me to the dry-cleaning today so I might not have access to the computer, but please keep the intelligent discussion going.

 

[JimsSweaterVest]

No brainer to me, If you have the faith to believe in God then the proof is there. And if you don't then you don't.

False. Faith by definition is "belief without evidence." Once you start talking about "proof" for faith (and for most believers it comes in the form of paltry miracles), you are saying you don't have enough faith. Blessed are those who have believed without asking for any proof.

Second, the degree of faith in a claim does not relate to its truth value. Think of all the religions that mankind has ever had. Lots of people genuinely and honestly believed in them down the centuries. Is that proof for Zeus? Adonis? Thor and his hammer? the Islamic God? The Christian God? Amon Ra? etc

Just because some deity had lots of believers does not mean that deity exists (or doesn't exist).

 

[buckeyegrad]

I believe this passage was discussed by Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus. In brief, the Gospel of John is the least reliable historically, among the 4, as to what the actual Jesus said and did. I'll get some more info later if you guys like.

I've read Misquoting Jesus and a couple of other books by Ehrman. Although they are interesting reads, once I began to read more on the subjects he addresses I began to realize how unreliable of an author he is. He claims that he is trying to bring things well known by scholars to a general reading audience, but in doing so he often only tells half of the story. For example, Ehrman talks about how there are hundreds of thousands of disagreements between the words in the texts. What he doesn't tell you is that over 70% of these are spelling/grammar errors made by later scribes. He also doesn't tell you that many of the remaining discrepencies are simply replacing a pronoun with the name it refers to.

If you want to read a really good response to Ehrman's claims (and others like him), read the first couple of chapters of Strobel's The Case for the Real Jesus. At the very least, you will see that Ehrman's assertions are not accepted as widely as he implies among Bible scholars. If you really want to go deep into this issue, then Metzger would be the best authority to reference. Easily the most recognized and esteemed Bible scholar of the second-half of the 20th century by both secular and religious academics, and Ehrman's faculty advisor at Princeton, you will find a very different view of the reliability of the New Testament.

 

[buckeyegrad]

Faith by definition is "belief without evidence."

As someone currently working on a dissertation proposal regarding the faith of traditional-age college students, I have to fundamentally disagree with this definition of faith--though I know it is very commonly used.

Relying quite a bit on the writings of James Fowler, who has been the chief authority on faith development over the last three decades, a better definition would be one's worldview or ethos. More specifically, faith is how one constructs meaning of the relationships betweeen self, other, and the center of one's values and power.

How evidence is understood in relationship to faith therefore becomes complicated since it simultaneously informs how one makes meaning while also being filtered and interpreted through the structures that are used to make meaning.