|
Post by fixit on Jul 12, 2014 3:12:38 GMT -5
There's a high degree of risk that religious people will skew history that relates to Christianity.
The account above says that Josephus is a highly reliable source, yet its generally accepted that the portion about Jesus in the Josephus history has been tweaked by the church.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 7:16:17 GMT -5
There's a high degree of risk that religious people will skew history that relates to Christianity. The account above says that Josephus is a highly reliable source, yet its generally accepted that the portion about Jesus in the Josephus history has been tweaked by the church. Yes, there was certainly some church redaction which is unfortunate. However there appears to be general consensus about what Josephus originally wrote about Christ. Josephus reliability is not in question - the subsequent redaction is unreliable though. Actually there are broad questions among historians about Josephus' reliability. It's true that there are three Christian-related phrases in Testimonium Flavianum which are widely considered to be fraudulently added. Generally regarding his work though, historians widely view his archeological perspective as highly valuable and is a vital source of Roman history. Historians in his day did not subject their work to critical analysis as they do today but in spite of that, his work is considered a higher quality than most ancient historians. However, his abilities as a transcriber of hearsay is believed to have been lacking in accuracy. Historians are widely critical of the accuracy of his details, probably due to his lack of tools that would be available to modern historians. One of the stronger arguments against Testimonium Flavianum as written today is that while Josephus' work was widely known in the early centuries, the early 2nd and 3rd church Fathers don't quote him at all even though they would have been well aware of his work. That lends weight to the suggestion that Testimonium Flavianum was subject to later editing.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 12, 2014 12:31:26 GMT -5
Secular implies neutrality to relgion .. not for or against. Atheism is not neutral. According to Wikopedia :Secularity (adjective form secular,[1] from Latin saecularis meaning "worldly" or "temporal") is the state of being separate from religion, or not being exclusively allied with or against any particular religion.Agree - my point is that it is possible for a person, whether atheist or religious to write a secular historical account about a period of time. Ross, Josephus WAS religious! Josephus WAS a Jew!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 13, 2014 0:01:04 GMT -5
Ross, Josephus WAS religious! Josephus WAS a Jew! I think you are missing my point - just because a person belongs to a religion doesn't mean they can't write a secular account. I think that you are missing my point. Although Josephus WAS a Jew, he was writing a secular account.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 13, 2014 11:13:49 GMT -5
I think you are missing my point - just because a person belongs to a religion doesn't mean they can't write a secular account. I think that you are missing my point. Although Josephus WAS a Jew, he was writing a secular account.
Perhaps the bottom line is that Josephus does present tangible information that Jesus did exist as found in his historical writings during the first century entitled Antiquities. Although he was no fan of Jesus, he relates events we find within the gospel accounts relating to his life and crucifixion. Also, John the Baptist is mentioned along with his beheading at the end of his life, according to the different synoptic gospel accounts.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+6%3A14-29%2CMatthew+14%3A1-12%2CLuke+3%3A19-20%2CLuke+9%3A7-9&version=NIV
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 13, 2014 11:24:28 GMT -5
If Josephus was not a fan of Jesus...why did he beg Jesus' body to bury? in fact placing Jesus in his own tomb?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2014 12:15:20 GMT -5
If Josephus was not a fan of Jesus...why did he beg Jesus' body to bury? in fact placing Jesus in his own tomb? i think that was joseph of arimathaea not josephus... Mat 27:57 When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple: Mat 27:58 He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered. Mat 27:59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, Mat 27:60 And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 13, 2014 14:17:34 GMT -5
If Josephus was not a fan of Jesus...why did he beg Jesus' body to bury? in fact placing Jesus in his own tomb? i think that was joseph of arimathaea not josephus... Mat 27:57 When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple: Mat 27:58 He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered. Mat 27:59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, Mat 27:60 And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed. Wally ~ I was talking about the Roman historian during the first century named Josephus as being no fan of Jesus, yet he wrote about his existence in his historical annals entitled Antiquities.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 14, 2014 16:23:23 GMT -5
According to several sources "Josephus of Arimathaea" is actually the "son" of Joseph of Arimathaea! Sorry I got their names confused!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 14, 2014 21:41:05 GMT -5
But Ross, what you wrote earlier seems to indicate that the relatively short period of time was significant... As I said it doesn't matter if they were written about AD70 - it's only around 35 years after. For a person who isn't a Christian a question may be "they were written so long after the events - is the details correct?" - so the shorter the period the better. From my perspective it 25-40 years doesn't make a lot of difference. Actually, if everything was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, it does make a big difference. It then means that none of it was prophecy by Jesus, but something written after the fact to make Jesus appear to know the future. That is a huge difference imo. The only writings I know of that were before the destruction were some of the letters that Paul wrote. Many things that were written were much later. Because Jesus said he would return in their live times, I presume no one thought it was important to write anything down. That may be the reason why so much of what was written came a lot later and were written by scribes, not by the people for whom the gospels are named.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 14, 2014 21:58:41 GMT -5
Ross, -then this is what you believe, the "Bible is simply an account of God’s action in the world and His plan and purpose for all creation which contain God’s message to us."
Of all the old documents in the world, do you believe that the "Bible" is the only true one? What about some of the others, -the Vedas for example?
Do you think that the Vedas also are an "account of God’s action in the world and His plan and purpose for all creation which contain God’s message to us" as well as the Bible?
If you do believe that the Vedas are also a true "account of God’s action in the world and His plan and purpose for all creation and contain God’s message to us," why do you believe that they are?
If you don't believe it is true, why don't you believe it is true?
Just a very brief description of the Vedas:The Vedas are a collection of hymns and other religious texts composed in India between about 1500 and 1000 BCE. It includes elements such as liturgical material as well as mythological accounts, poems, prayers, and formulas considered to be sacred by the Vedic religion.
Origin & Authorship
The origin of the Vedas can be traced back as far as 1500 BCE, when a large group of nomads (Sound familiar? called the Aryans, coming from central Asia, crossed the Hindu Kush Mountains, migrating into the Indian subcontinent. This was a large migration and used to be seen as an invasion. This invasion hypothesis, however, is not unanimously accepted by scholars today. All we know for certain, mainly through linguistic studies, is that the Aryan language gained ascendency over the local languages in the Indian sub-continent. The language of the Vedas is Sanskrit, an ancestor of most of the modern languages spoken today in South Asia.
Where do I start.... A couple of thoughts which are focused on differences between Christianity and Hinduism 1. Christianity has historical viability whereas in my opinion there is a fair amount of historical ambiguity with Hinduism - Christianity has been tested historically 2. Both religions have key historical figures but only Jesus is shown to have risen bodily from the dead 3. Resurrection and reincarnation are quite different - the resurrection of Jesus Christ in particular has considerable justification through secular and religious scholarship alike. 4. There are large differences between Christian monotheism and pantheism/polytheism - although I accept that Hinduism is not just the latter - and how this relates to ethics/right/wrong etc 5. Christianity ultimately deals with sin - through Christ. Of course, I believe the Vedas exists and it has proven inspirational for many people and does so today. I am a Christian and therefore believe in Christ for the reasons stated above - and others. I was asked a question about what the Bible meant to me and I answered it . I don't know how a Hindu would answer the question about what the Vedas is to them but maybe someone on this Board who was a 2x2 and is now a Hindu can do that Actually, Krishna which is the 8th incarnation of the God Vishu is said to have been born to a virgin, and several other aspects of divinity that were attributed later on to the Christ. Interestingly, he is often depicted as a herdsman, with cows instead of sheep like Christ, but the similarity is obvious. Also, Devaki (Krishna's mother), was visited by the god Vishu, impregnated by him and he became the 8th incarnation of himself as a god. Sound familiar? Christianity claims to be monotheistic, but there is still a son, father and Holy Spirit which is 3. The concept of the Trinity that all these are 1 is the Christian attempt at trying to keep the Jewish God monotheistic and still have it involve 3 individual persons. While the Hindu religion has what Christianity see as many gods and therefore polytheist, they really have a trinity also. Brahma would be like the Christian God, Vishu - Jesus the son, and Shiva being the 3rd in the trinity. The Vedas are said to have existed for time immemorial , never 'not' existing. So you see, there is really nothing new under the sun, just little twists and turns that each culture brings to their own belief in the divine.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 14, 2014 22:12:59 GMT -5
There's a high degree of risk that religious people will skew history that relates to Christianity. The account above says that Josephus is a highly reliable source, yet its generally accepted that the portion about Jesus in the Josephus history has been tweaked by the church. Yes, they didn't bother to keep to his style of writing at all, so it became evident that someone with an agenda did 'add to' the writings of Josephus. It's not really that they were trying to outright deceive by the things they did, they just had an agenda and a new religion to get started and they felt justified in adding their own definitions, understandings etc. They can't be trusted as being the truth and nothing but the truth though. Not by a long shot.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 14, 2014 22:17:12 GMT -5
If Josephus was not a fan of Jesus...why did he beg Jesus' body to bury? in fact placing Jesus in his own tomb? STR that was Joseph of Arimathea who was an uncle of Jesus. Which is interesting in itself as he was said to be wealthy. To have a 'tomb' on his property, he likely was quite wealthy.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 15, 2014 10:05:10 GMT -5
Where do I start.... A couple of thoughts which are focused on differences between Christianity and Hinduism 1. Christianity has historical viability whereas in my opinion there is a fair amount of historical ambiguity with Hinduism - Christianity has been tested historically 2. Both religions have key historical figures but only Jesus is shown to have risen bodily from the dead 3. Resurrection and reincarnation are quite different - the resurrection of Jesus Christ in particular has considerable justification through secular and religious scholarship alike. 4. There are large differences between Christian monotheism and pantheism/polytheism - although I accept that Hinduism is not just the latter - and how this relates to ethics/right/wrong etc 5. Christianity ultimately deals with sin - through Christ. Of course, I believe the Vedas exists and it has proven inspirational for many people and does so today. I am a Christian and therefore believe in Christ for the reasons stated above - and others. I was asked a question about what the Bible meant to me and I answered it . I don't know how a Hindu would answer the question about what the Vedas is to them but maybe someone on this Board who was a 2x2 and is now a Hindu can do that Actually, Krishna which is the 8th incarnation of the God Vishu is said to have been born to a virgin, and several other aspects of divinity that were attributed later on to the Christ. Interestingly, he is often depicted as a herdsman, with cows instead of sheep like Christ, but the similarity is obvious. Also, Devaki (Krishna's mother), was visited by the god Vishu, impregnated by him and he became the 8th incarnation of himself as a god. Sound familiar? Christianity claims to be monotheistic, but there is still a son, father and Holy Spirit which is 3. The concept of the Trinity that all these are 1 is the Christian attempt at trying to keep the Jewish God monotheistic and still have it involve 3 individual persons. While the Hindu religion has what Christianity see as many gods and therefore polytheist, they really have a trinity also. Brahma would be like the Christian God, Vishu - Jesus the son, and Shiva being the 3rd in the trinity. The Vedas are said to have existed for time immemorial , never 'not' existing. So you see, there is really nothing new under the sun, just little twists and turns that each culture brings to their own belief in the divine. Well, true nothing new under the sun...same perhaps in the heavens, for now that is! It will be very interesting to see IF all these "God/god/gods" turn out to be the same and only one! Just looked at and understood perhaps differently? My cousin's widow and I were talking the other night and her family has considerable amount of Cherokee blood in it....and she said that they worship the "Great Spirit" and always looked to the heavens when worshipping the Great Spirit. So again, are we going to find out in the end of things that the "Great Spirit" is the same one as our "God"?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 15, 2014 10:19:41 GMT -5
Actually, Krishna which is the 8th incarnation of the God Vishu is said to have been born to a virgin, and several other aspects of divinity that were attributed later on to the Christ. Interestingly, he is often depicted as a herdsman, with cows instead of sheep like Christ, but the similarity is obvious. Also, Devaki (Krishna's mother), was visited by the god Vishu, impregnated by him and he became the 8th incarnation of himself as a god. Sound familiar? Christianity claims to be monotheistic, but there is still a son, father and Holy Spirit which is 3. The concept of the Trinity that all these are 1 is the Christian attempt at trying to keep the Jewish God monotheistic and still have it involve 3 individual persons. While the Hindu religion has what Christianity see as many gods and therefore polytheist, they really have a trinity also. Brahma would be like the Christian God, Vishu - Jesus the son, and Shiva being the 3rd in the trinity. The Vedas are said to have existed for time immemorial , never 'not' existing. So you see, there is really nothing new under the sun, just little twists and turns that each culture brings to their own belief in the divine. Well, true nothing new under the sun...same perhaps in the heavens, for now that is! It will be very interesting to see IF all these "God/god/gods" turn out to be the same and only one! Just looked at and understood perhaps differently? My cousin's widow and I were talking the other night and her family has considerable amount of Cherokee blood in it....and she said that they worship the "Great Spirit" and always looked to the heavens when worshipping the Great Spirit. So again, are we going to find out in the end of things that the "Great Spirit" is the same one as our "God"? I guess the point is, no one can no for sure. That's why I don't understand how people can say without any doubt that only 'their' version of God will be what saves you. Saves you from what really? Saves you from God? That has never made any sense to me. I really don't see why it can't all be one God that all the cultures worship. They don't all have to have the same name or exactly the same philosophy. It seems to me it should be more a respect and love for that divinity that would count. If there is a God that created everything I very much doubt a being of that caliber would bother to be so petty as to pick just one religion that it will 'save'. But to say that there is a possibility of hell if you don't worship the Christian God a certain way, seems to me to be a pretty good control mechanism. Even certain Christian denominations and sects are doomed according to some people. I know you aren't one of these STR, just making some general observations here.
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Jul 15, 2014 11:22:43 GMT -5
That's why I don't understand how people can say without any doubt that only 'their' version of God will be what saves you. Versions of God? That's a new one. I don't understand how someone could say there are different versions of God when what a person's God requires of them is often different that what other versions of God require. I'm getting myself tangled in knots here. Hahaha... I do understand what you are saying, though. Some believe there is one "high power" that governs all. How people interpret/see/worship that "higher power" is what makes the difference in their lives. Here's a quote I like. Don't know who said it. "God is like a prism. How you see him depends on where you are standing."
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jul 15, 2014 11:40:18 GMT -5
That's why I don't understand how people can say without any doubt that only 'their' version of God will be what saves you. Versions of God? That's a new one. I don't understand how someone could say there are different versions of God when what a person's God requires of them is often different that what other versions of God require. I'm getting myself tangled in knots here. Hahaha... I do understand what you are saying, though. Some believe there is one "high power" that governs all. How people interpret/see/worship that "higher power" is what makes the difference in their lives. Here's a quote I like. Don't know who said it. "God is like a prism. How you see him depends on where you are standing." About a billion Hindu have 330 million Hinduism gods to pick from. www.allaboutreligion.org/hinduism-gods-faq.htmwww.religioustolerance.org/hinduism.htm
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 15, 2014 14:15:49 GMT -5
That's why I don't understand how people can say without any doubt that only 'their' version of God will be what saves you. Versions of God? That's a new one. I don't understand how someone could say there are different versions of God when what a person's God requires of them is often different that what other versions of God require. I'm getting myself tangled in knots here. Hahaha... I do understand what you are saying, though. Some believe there is one "high power" that governs all. How people interpret/see/worship that "higher power" is what makes the difference in their lives. Here's a quote I like. Don't know who said it. "God is like a prism. How you see him depends on where you are standing." Very good quote. I like that. Pretty much how it is. By versions of God, I mean the many different beliefs about what God is, which religion is right etc. Seeing as there are so many, I don't understand how people can say there 'version' is the only right one.
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Jul 15, 2014 17:57:33 GMT -5
By versions of God, I mean the many different beliefs about what God is, which religion is right etc. Seeing as there are so many, I don't understand how people can say there 'version' is the only right one. Now I understand what you are saying. I was thinking along the lines that most Christian would never admit they worship the same god as other religions do, only a different version.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 15, 2014 21:32:41 GMT -5
Ross, -then this is what you believe, the "Bible is simply an account of God’s action in the world and His plan and purpose for all creation which contain God’s message to us."
Of all the old documents in the world, do you believe that the "Bible" is the only true one? What about some of the others, -the Vedas for example?
Do you think that the Vedas also are an "account of God’s action in the world and His plan and purpose for all creation which contain God’s message to us" as well as the Bible?
If you do believe that the Vedas are also a true "account of God’s action in the world and His plan and purpose for all creation and contain God’s message to us," why do you believe that they are?
If you don't believe it is true, why don't you believe it is true?
Just a very brief description of the Vedas:The Vedas are a collection of hymns and other religious texts composed in India between about 1500 and 1000 BCE. It includes elements such as liturgical material as well as mythological accounts, poems, prayers, and formulas considered to be sacred by the Vedic religion.
Origin & Authorship
The origin of the Vedas can be traced back as far as 1500 BCE, when a large group of nomads (Sound familiar? called the Aryans, coming from central Asia, crossed the Hindu Kush Mountains, migrating into the Indian subcontinent. This was a large migration and used to be seen as an invasion. This invasion hypothesis, however, is not unanimously accepted by scholars today. All we know for certain, mainly through linguistic studies, is that the Aryan language gained ascendency over the local languages in the Indian sub-continent. The language of the Vedas is Sanskrit, an ancestor of most of the modern languages spoken today in South Asia.
Where do I start.... A couple of thoughts which are focused on differences between Christianity and Hinduism1. Christianity has historical viability whereas in my opinion there is a fair amount of historical ambiguity with Hinduism - Christianity has been tested historically2. Both religions have key historical figures but only Jesus is shown to have risen bodily from the dead3. Resurrection and reincarnation are quite different - the resurrection of Jesus Christ in particular has considerable justification through secular and religious scholarship alike. 4. There are large differences between Christian monotheism and pantheism/polytheism - although I accept that Hinduism is not just the latter - and how this relates to ethics/right/wrong etc5. Christianity ultimately deals with sin - through Christ. Of course, I believe the Vedas exists and it has proven inspirational for many people and does so today. I am a Christian and therefore believe in Christ for the reasons stated above - and others. I was asked a question about what the Bible meant to me and I answered it . I don't know how a Hindu would answer the question about what the Vedas is to them but maybe someone on this Board who was a 2x2 and is now a Hindu can do that 1) You state that "Christianity has been tested historically," However, you don't give us any evidence of proof of that claim.
2) Jesus having "risen bodily from the dead" has no evidence except what is written in NT and as I have stated before, one cannot use the same book as proof for what another part of the same book states.
3) Where do you find any secular justification, let alone "considerable" secular justification, for the resurrection of Jesus Christ in secular scholarship ? Even some religious scholarship throws doubt on Jesus "bodily" resurrection.
4) What large differences do you find between Christian monotheism and other religions?
(In our World Civilization class we did learn why the Christian religion appealed to some of the Greek & Roman world. Quite human oriented reasons really. One was you didn't have a plethora of gods to placate.)
My question is two-fold.
1) Why do you think that this God, Jesus, and the religion of Christianity, the newest of religions, -still has such a hold on the Western world?
2) Do you believe that this Jesus will be the last of the Gods & Christianity the last of the religions that humankind will believe in? Rather do you think that in another 1000 years there will be another god & religion develop as has happened throughout the history of humanity in the past?
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 16, 2014 14:33:56 GMT -5
Well, true nothing new under the sun...same perhaps in the heavens, for now that is! It will be very interesting to see IF all these "God/god/gods" turn out to be the same and only one! Just looked at and understood perhaps differently? My cousin's widow and I were talking the other night and her family has considerable amount of Cherokee blood in it....and she said that they worship the "Great Spirit" and always looked to the heavens when worshipping the Great Spirit. So again, are we going to find out in the end of things that the "Great Spirit" is the same one as our "God"? I guess the point is, no one can no for sure. That's why I don't understand how people can say without any doubt that only 'their' version of God will be what saves you. Saves you from what really? Saves you from God? That has never made any sense to me. I really don't see why it can't all be one God that all the cultures worship. They don't all have to have the same name or exactly the same philosophy. It seems to me it should be more a respect and love for that divinity that would count. If there is a God that created everything I very much doubt a being of that caliber would bother to be so petty as to pick just one religion that it will 'save'. But to say that there is a possibility of hell if you don't worship the Christian God a certain way, seems to me to be a pretty good control mechanism. Even certain Christian denominations and sects are doomed according to some people. I know you aren't one of these STR, just making some general observations here. You ha ve some very valid viewpoints! I don't believe the "Christian God"would condemn all but one church on the earth....I think what the Christian God will look for in all of us and this will be an individual thing and something you've often spoken about...Jesus himself told his Apostles that he hada new commandment for them and that was they were to love one another as he had loved them, SO THAT people would know that they belonged to him! The ten commandments will likely continue to be the "laws" that are simple enough to understand and are fair to all involved! The first commandment is to love our Lord and God with all our heart,m inds and soul. The second is like unto it and that is love our brethren/neighbor as ourself. And keeping in mind as Paul wrote all the other 8 commandments are well covered with the second one, for they all have to do with trespassing against one another, etc. So it is love and not religiosity that will get us any where, IMO!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 16, 2014 17:53:36 GMT -5
I guess the point is, no one can no for sure. That's why I don't understand how people can say without any doubt that only 'their' version of God will be what saves you. Saves you from what really? Saves you from God? That has never made any sense to me. I really don't see why it can't all be one God that all the cultures worship. They don't all have to have the same name or exactly the same philosophy. It seems to me it should be more a respect and love for that divinity that would count. If there is a God that created everything I very much doubt a being of that caliber would bother to be so petty as to pick just one religion that it will 'save'. But to say that there is a possibility of hell if you don't worship the Christian God a certain way, seems to me to be a pretty good control mechanism. Even certain Christian denominations and sects are doomed according to some people. I know you aren't one of these STR, just making some general observations here. You ha ve some very valid viewpoints! I don't believe the "Christian God"would condemn all but one church on the earth....I think what the Christian God will look for in all of us and this will be an individual thing and something you've often spoken about...Jesus himself told his Apostles that he hada new commandment for them and that was they were to love one another as he had loved them, SO THAT people would know that they belonged to him! The ten commandments will likely continue to be the "laws" that are simple enough to understand and are fair to all involved! The first commandment is to love our Lord and God with all our heart,m inds and soul. The second is like unto it and that is love our brethren/neighbor as ourself. And keeping in mind as Paul wrote all the other 8 commandments are well covered with the second one, for they all have to do with trespassing against one another, etc. So it is love and not religiosity that will get us any where, IMO! And even if it turns out that death is the end, we have still done a good thing for the world while we lived if we loved, were compassionate and helped take care of others. A win win when you use love as the 'way'.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 16, 2014 20:41:35 GMT -5
Except that the "tangible" information isn't really that tangible.
As I've stated before I have a rather rare book of The Works of Josephus. I don't even have to depend on "biblegateway" or even "wiki" to see what Josephus says about Jesus.
The book has 978 pages each page of which has two columns.
There is only one paragraph, approxmate 1/3 of one column concerning anything about Jesus.
Even that has been called into question by some biblical scholars as perhaps being redacted into his book by Christians at a later time.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 16, 2014 21:02:16 GMT -5
Actually, Krishna which is the 8th incarnation of the God Vishu is said to have been born to a virgin, and several other aspects of divinity that were attributed later on to the Christ. Interestingly, he is often depicted as a herdsman, with cows instead of sheep like Christ, but the similarity is obvious. Also, Devaki (Krishna's mother), was visited by the god Vishu, impregnated by him and he became the 8th incarnation of himself as a god. Sound familiar? Christianity claims to be monotheistic, but there is still a son, father and Holy Spirit which is 3. The concept of the Trinity that all these are 1 is the Christian attempt at trying to keep the Jewish God monotheistic and still have it involve 3 individual persons. While the Hindu religion has what Christianity see as many gods and therefore polytheist, they really have a trinity also. Brahma would be like the Christian God, Vishu - Jesus the son, and Shiva being the 3rd in the trinity. The Vedas are said to have existed for time immemorial , never 'not' existing. So you see, there is really nothing new under the sun, just little twists and turns that each culture brings to their own belief in the divine. Well, true nothing new under the sun...same perhaps in the heavens, for now that is! It will be very interesting to see IF all these "God/god/gods" turn out to be the same and only one! Just looked at and understood perhaps differently? My cousin's widow and I were talking the other night and her family has considerable amount of Cherokee blood in it....and she said that they worship the "Great Spirit" and always looked to the heavens when worshipping the Great Spirit. So again, are we going to find out in the end of things that the "Great Spirit" is the same one as our "God"? That is interesting! I am glad to see our native Americans being able to talk freely about their beliefs.
That has been a rather recent development in my lifetime. The Christian religion did their best to stamp out Native American beliefs early in our history.
Those South West Missions are a tourist attraction now and people either don't know or don't understand the pain that was caused to Native Americans by coercion to convert to Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 16, 2014 21:43:28 GMT -5
You ha ve some very valid viewpoints! I don't believe the "Christian God"would condemn all but one church on the earth....I think what the Christian God will look for in all of us and this will be an individual thing and something you've often spoken about...Jesus himself told his Apostles that he hada new commandment for them and that was they were to love one another as he had loved them, SO THAT people would know that they belonged to him! The ten commandments will likely continue to be the "laws" that are simple enough to understand and are fair to all involved! The first commandment is to love our Lord and God with all our heart,m inds and soul. The second is like unto it and that is love our brethren/neighbor as ourself. And keeping in mind as Paul wrote all the other 8 commandments are well covered with the second one, for they all have to do with trespassing against one another, etc. So it is love and not religiosity that will get us any where, IMO! And even if it turns out that death is the end, we have still done a good thing for the world while we lived if we loved, were compassionate and helped take care of others. A win win when you use love as the 'way'. Right!, "love" without actively working towards justice and equality for oppressed, doesn't go far.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 16, 2014 21:53:51 GMT -5
And even if it turns out that death is the end, we have still done a good thing for the world while we lived if we loved, were compassionate and helped take care of others. A win win when you use love as the 'way'. Right!, "love" without actively working towards justice and equality for oppressed, doesn't go far. I agree. I see compassion and helping others out as a way to show love. Love as just a word is very empty when not backed up with actions.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 17, 2014 10:39:44 GMT -5
The ten commandments will likely continue to be the "laws" that are simple enough to understand and are fair to all involved! The first commandment is to love our Lord and God with all our heart,m inds and soul. The source of the ten commandments can be linked to many ancient documents. It is not a unique and original list. This raises the question of which god.
|
|