|
Post by Dan on Jan 12, 2020 23:21:52 GMT -5
That's cool, we aren't much different, I also did a great deal of biblical research, but reached a completely different conclusion that you did, so I remain a professing Christian fundamentalist. I left the Truth for varied reasons, but essentially thought that they were too strict & focused on a lot of superficial things like dress codes, while not emphasizing more important things. Jesus said, "My yoke is easy", but they seemed to have made it much more difficult than it ought to be.
I'd be a Christian even without the promise of everlasting life, so its not selfish desire that motivates me. I agree that you can be a decent person without any religious influence, but I follow the example and teachings of Jesus because he epitomizes everything that's decent, and then some.
I think it's interesting you think Jesus is the example to follow when pretty much everything he said was said earlier by The Buddha. When I was exploring religions I really liked Buddhism's beliefs because they were about love and a good example to follow in life. But I never became one as I realized that they were just good ways to be in life and not required to get to heaven as I didn't believe there was an afterlife by that time. I remember thinking that reincarnation made more sense if the reason why we are here is to 'get it right' vs Christianity where someone has to shed blood to save you and give you one kick at the can to get it right. But none of it makes sense to me anymore so I live life to make it as good as I can for others and myself right now.
No one prophesied that the Buddha would arrive, he was not the son of God, he did no miracles, never claimed to be the Truth or a Savior, and is in his grave. The same could be said for Mohammad. So in my opinion, neither were the example Christ was, neither were perfect, neither voluntarily sacrificed themselves for the sake of others, "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission" (Hebrews 9:22).
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Jan 12, 2020 23:56:17 GMT -5
I think it's interesting you think Jesus is the example to follow when pretty much everything he said was said earlier by The Buddha. When I was exploring religions I really liked Buddhism's beliefs because they were about love and a good example to follow in life. But I never became one as I realized that they were just good ways to be in life and not required to get to heaven as I didn't believe there was an afterlife by that time. I remember thinking that reincarnation made more sense if the reason why we are here is to 'get it right' vs Christianity where someone has to shed blood to save you and give you one kick at the can to get it right. But none of it makes sense to me anymore so I live life to make it as good as I can for others and myself right now.
No one prophesied that the Buddha would arrive, he was not the son of God, he did no miracles, never claimed to be the Truth or a Savior, and is in his grave. The same could be said for Mohammad. So in my opinion, neither were the example Christ was, neither were perfect, neither voluntarily sacrificed themselves for the sake of others, "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission" (Hebrews 9:22).
“No one prophesied that the Buddha would arrive” Neither did anyone prophesied that the Jesus would arrive! Here’s the problem everyone who believes relies on that the Gospels were quoting from the Septuagint. However, how many of you know that is a bit of sleight of hand twisting the narrative to fit the story being sold? You say to me even the Jews agree that the Septuagint was a true and correct translation and this would be true. But here is what very few know, that the Septuagint only is the five books of Moses. Thus if your reading an English copy that says it is taken from the Septuagint and it contains more than the five books of Moses it’s a fraud! Where the Gospels say Jesus went to the temple and read from a scroll and then the Gospels quote Jesus reading from a Greek translation of the “Expanded Septuagint why didn't the Gospels writers explain that Jesus hadn’t been reading Hebrew in a long time so he called for a Greek translation to read from? See where is this is going? You cannot trust and English translation of the Bible that is based on the King James Translation that in turn is based on a Second Century Translation of the Septuagint with added books that were not part of the original.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Jan 12, 2020 23:58:14 GMT -5
You are not understanding the Bible. That’s where I’m getting my impression. Or you are just refusing to believe the Bible which I think is the real issue. I believed. I know that. I wanted to be a worker. I was a very serious devout kid. I know what I believed. I also know that the pastors that I mentor also believed with all their heart. It was and still is quite traumatic for some of them. Your interpretation of the bible isn't necessarily right. There is no way anyone can tell me that they believed more than I did at one time. You are right, but you found out what you believed wasn't the truth. Doesn't mean you should throw the baby out with the bath water though. Just saying 😁
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 13, 2020 0:23:54 GMT -5
I think it's interesting you think Jesus is the example to follow when pretty much everything he said was said earlier by The Buddha. When I was exploring religions I really liked Buddhism's beliefs because they were about love and a good example to follow in life. But I never became one as I realized that they were just good ways to be in life and not required to get to heaven as I didn't believe there was an afterlife by that time. I remember thinking that reincarnation made more sense if the reason why we are here is to 'get it right' vs Christianity where someone has to shed blood to save you and give you one kick at the can to get it right. But none of it makes sense to me anymore so I live life to make it as good as I can for others and myself right now. No one prophesied that the Buddha would arrive, he was not the son of God, he did no miracles, never claimed to be the Truth or a Savior, and is in his grave. The same could be said for Mohammad. So in my opinion, neither were the example Christ was, neither were perfect, neither voluntarily sacrificed themselves for the sake of others, "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission" (Hebrews 9:22).
You are perfectly correct -- those two were never considered "christs". Many others were, however.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 13, 2020 0:33:28 GMT -5
No one prophesied that the Buddha would arrive, he was not the son of God, he did no miracles, never claimed to be the Truth or a Savior, and is in his grave. The same could be said for Mohammad. So in my opinion, neither were the example Christ was, neither were perfect, neither voluntarily sacrificed themselves for the sake of others, "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission" (Hebrews 9:22).
You say to me even the Jews agree that the Septuagint was a true and correct translation and this would be true. But here is what very few know, that the Septuagint only is the five books of Moses. Thus if your reading an English copy that says it is taken from the Septuagint and it contains more than the five books of Moses it’s a fraud! But the Septuagint does contain more than the five books of Moses. The Septuagint is "a Greek version of the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament), including the Apocrypha, made for Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt in the 3rd and 2nd centuries bc and adopted by the early Christian Churches." "The Greek Old Testament, or Septuagint (from the Latin: septuāgintā literally "seventy"; often abbreviated as 70 in Roman numerals, i.e., LXX), is the earliest extant Koine Greek translation of books from the Jewish Bible in Hebrew, various biblical apocrypha and deuterocanonical books."
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 13, 2020 0:42:28 GMT -5
I think it's interesting you think Jesus is the example to follow when pretty much everything he said was said earlier by The Buddha. When I was exploring religions I really liked Buddhism's beliefs because they were about love and a good example to follow in life. But I never became one as I realized that they were just good ways to be in life and not required to get to heaven as I didn't believe there was an afterlife by that time. I remember thinking that reincarnation made more sense if the reason why we are here is to 'get it right' vs Christianity where someone has to shed blood to save you and give you one kick at the can to get it right. But none of it makes sense to me anymore so I live life to make it as good as I can for others and myself right now. No one prophesied that the Buddha would arrive, he was not the son of God, he did no miracles, never claimed to be the Truth or a Savior, and is in his grave. The same could be said for Mohammad. So in my opinion, neither were the example Christ was, neither were perfect, neither voluntarily sacrificed themselves for the sake of others, "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission" (Hebrews 9:22).
However, Dan, -how is one to trust one part of a book which simply claims something that another part of that same book (the bible) states it was suppose to happen?
Also "miracles" were not unusual beliefs in the day when Jesus lived and actually very common though out the history of mankind & in all part so the world.
Miracle
Written By: R.J. Zwi Werblowsky
www.britannica.com/topic/miracle/Sources-of-miracles
Miracle, extraordinary and astonishing happening that is attributed to the presence and action of an ultimate or divine power.
A miracle is generally defined, according to the etymology of the word—it comes from the Greek thaumasion and the Latin miraculum—as that which causes wonder and astonishment, being extraordinary in itself and amazing or inexplicable by normal standards.
Because that which is normal and usual is also considered as natural, miracles have occasionally been defined as supernatural events, but this definition presupposes a very specific conception of nature and natural laws and cannot, therefore, be generally applied.
The significance of a miraculous event is frequently held to reside not in the event as such but in the reality to which it points (e.g., the presence or activity of a divine power); thus, a miracle is also called a sign—from the Greek sēmeion (biblical Hebrew ot)—signifying and indicating something beyond itself.
Extraordinary and astonishing occurrences become specifically religious phenomena when they express, reveal, or signify a religious reality, however defined.
Belief in miraculous happenings is a feature of practically all religions, and the incidence of miracles is universal, though their functions, nature, purpose, and explanations vary with the social and cultural—including theological and philosophical—context in which they appear.
However, inexplicable, all miracles have an explanation in the sense that they are accounted for in terms of the religious and cultural system that supports them and that, in turn, they are meant to support.
Without such an accompanying—explicit or implicit—theory (e.g., the presence, activity, and intervention of such realities as gods, spirits, or magical powers), there would be no miracles in the aforementioned sense but only unexplained phenomena.
PS: .. and yes; Bhuddism and Hindu and Islam do also have the beliefs in "miracles."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2020 0:52:06 GMT -5
No one prophesied that the Buddha would arrive, he was not the son of God, he did no miracles, never claimed to be the Truth or a Savior, and is in his grave. The same could be said for Mohammad. So in my opinion, neither were the example Christ was, neither were perfect, neither voluntarily sacrificed themselves for the sake of others, "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission" (Hebrews 9:22).
However, Dan, -how is one to trust one part of a book which simply claims something that another part of that same book (the bible) states it was suppose to happen?
Also "miracles" were not unusual beliefs in the day when Jesus lived and actually very common though out the history of mankind & in all part so the world.
Miracle
Written By: R.J. Zwi Werblowsky
www.britannica.com/topic/miracle/Sources-of-miracles
Miracle, extraordinary and astonishing happening that is attributed to the presence and action of an ultimate or divine power.
A miracle is generally defined, according to the etymology of the word—it comes from the Greek thaumasion and the Latin miraculum—as that which causes wonder and astonishment, being extraordinary in itself and amazing or inexplicable by normal standards.
Because that which is normal and usual is also considered as natural, miracles have occasionally been defined as supernatural events, but this definition presupposes a very specific conception of nature and natural laws and cannot, therefore, be generally applied.
The significance of a miraculous event is frequently held to reside not in the event as such but in the reality to which it points (e.g., the presence or activity of a divine power); thus, a miracle is also called a sign—from the Greek sēmeion (biblical Hebrew ot)—signifying and indicating something beyond itself.
Extraordinary and astonishing occurrences become specifically religious phenomena when they express, reveal, or signify a religious reality, however defined.
Belief in miraculous happenings is a feature of practically all religions, and the incidence of miracles is universal, though their functions, nature, purpose, and explanations vary with the social and cultural—including theological and philosophical—context in which they appear.
However, inexplicable, all miracles have an explanation in the sense that they are accounted for in terms of the religious and cultural system that supports them and that, in turn, they are meant to support.
Without such an accompanying—explicit or implicit—theory (e.g., the presence, activity, and intervention of such realities as gods, spirits, or magical powers), there would be no miracles in the aforementioned sense but only unexplained phenomena.
PS: .. and yes; Bhuddism and Hindu and Islam do also have the beliefs in "miracles."
again...they are 66 books written at different times and places and by different people...
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 13, 2020 0:54:33 GMT -5
I believed. I know that. I wanted to be a worker. I was a very serious devout kid. I know what I believed. I also know that the pastors that I mentor also believed with all their heart. It was and still is quite traumatic for some of them. Your interpretation of the bible isn't necessarily right. There is no way anyone can tell me that they believed more than I did at one time. You are right, but you found out what you believed wasn't the truth. Doesn't mean you should throw the baby out with the bath water though. Just saying 😁 Sure, but what about when you finally realize there never WAS any "baby IN the bath water? Just saying..
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on Jan 13, 2020 0:58:14 GMT -5
No one prophesied that the Buddha would arrive, he was not the son of God, he did no miracles, never claimed to be the Truth or a Savior, and is in his grave. The same could be said for Mohammad. So in my opinion, neither were the example Christ was, neither were perfect, neither voluntarily sacrificed themselves for the sake of others, "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission" (Hebrews 9:22).
“No one prophesied that the Buddha would arrive” Neither did anyone prophesied that the Jesus would arrive! Here’s the problem everyone who believes relies on that the Gospels were quoting from the Septuagint. However, how many of you know that is a bit of sleight of hand twisting the narrative to fit the story being sold? You say to me even the Jews agree that the Septuagint was a true and correct translation and this would be true. But here is what very few know, that the Septuagint only is the five books of Moses. Thus if your reading an English copy that says it is taken from the Septuagint and it contains more than the five books of Moses it’s a fraud! Where the Gospels say Jesus went to the temple and read from a scroll and then the Gospels quote Jesus reading from a Greek translation of the “Expanded Septuagint why didn't the Gospels writers explain that Jesus hadn’t been reading Hebrew in a long time so he called for a Greek translation to read from? See where is this is going? You cannot trust and English translation of the Bible that is based on the King James Translation that in turn is based on a Second Century Translation of the Septuagint with added books that were not part of the original. You canna trust a Sassanach.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Jan 13, 2020 0:59:24 GMT -5
You say to me even the Jews agree that the Septuagint was a true and correct translation and this would be true. But here is what very few know, that the Septuagint only is the five books of Moses. Thus if your reading an English copy that says it is taken from the Septuagint and it contains more than the five books of Moses it’s a fraud! But the Septuagint does contain more than the five books of Moses. The Septuagint is "a Greek version of the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament), including the Apocrypha, made for Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt in the 3rd and 2nd centuries bc and adopted by the early Christian Churches." "The Greek Old Testament, or Septuagint (from the Latin: septuāgintā literally "seventy"; often abbreviated as 70 in Roman numerals, i.e., LXX), is the earliest extant Koine Greek translation of books from the Jewish Bible in Hebrew, various biblical apocrypha and deuterocanonical books." Bob being a respected research I thrust you will take the time and listen to a rabbi explain in much better detail then I can: www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGND-Htfr5w
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 13, 2020 1:00:49 GMT -5
However, Dan, -how is one to trust one part of a book which simply claims something that another part of that same book (the bible) states it was suppose to happen?
Also "miracles" were not unusual beliefs in the day when Jesus lived and actually very common though out the history of mankind & in all part so the world.
Miracle
Written By: R.J. Zwi Werblowsky
www.britannica.com/topic/miracle/Sources-of-miracles
Miracle, extraordinary and astonishing happening that is attributed to the presence and action of an ultimate or divine power.
A miracle is generally defined, according to the etymology of the word—it comes from the Greek thaumasion and the Latin miraculum—as that which causes wonder and astonishment, being extraordinary in itself and amazing or inexplicable by normal standards.
Because that which is normal and usual is also considered as natural, miracles have occasionally been defined as supernatural events, but this definition presupposes a very specific conception of nature and natural laws and cannot, therefore, be generally applied.
The significance of a miraculous event is frequently held to reside not in the event as such but in the reality to which it points (e.g., the presence or activity of a divine power); thus, a miracle is also called a sign—from the Greek sēmeion (biblical Hebrew ot)—signifying and indicating something beyond itself.
Extraordinary and astonishing occurrences become specifically religious phenomena when they express, reveal, or signify a religious reality, however defined.
Belief in miraculous happenings is a feature of practically all religions, and the incidence of miracles is universal, though their functions, nature, purpose, and explanations vary with the social and cultural—including theological and philosophical—context in which they appear.
However, inexplicable, all miracles have an explanation in the sense that they are accounted for in terms of the religious and cultural system that supports them and that, in turn, they are meant to support.
Without such an accompanying—explicit or implicit—theory (e.g., the presence, activity, and intervention of such realities as gods, spirits, or magical powers), there would be no miracles in the aforementioned sense but only unexplained phenomena.
PS: .. and yes; Bhuddism and Hindu and Islam do also have the beliefs in "miracles."
again...they are 66 books written at different times and places and by different people... We are all aware of that, Wally! But do YOU read them as separate books and not as a whole? Of course you don't! You refer to it as THE BIBLE.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 13, 2020 1:02:04 GMT -5
No one prophesied that the Buddha would arrive, he was not the son of God, he did no miracles, never claimed to be the Truth or a Savior, and is in his grave. The same could be said for Mohammad. So in my opinion, neither were the example Christ was, neither were perfect, neither voluntarily sacrificed themselves for the sake of others, "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission" (Hebrews 9:22).
“No one prophesied that the Buddha would arrive” Neither did anyone prophesied that the Jesus would arrive! Here’s the problem everyone who believes relies on that the Gospels were quoting from the Septuagint. However, how many of you know that is a bit of sleight of hand twisting the narrative to fit the story being sold? You say to me even the Jews agree that the Septuagint was a true and correct translation and this would be true. But here is what very few know, that the Septuagint only is the five books of Moses. Thus if your reading an English copy that says it is taken from the Septuagint and it contains more than the five books of Moses it’s a fraud! Where the Gospels say Jesus went to the temple and read from a scroll and then the Gospels quote Jesus reading from a Greek translation of the “Expanded Septuagint why didn't the Gospels writers explain that Jesus hadn’t been reading Hebrew in a long time so he called for a Greek translation to read from? See where is this is going? You cannot trust and English translation of the Bible that is based on the King James Translation that in turn is based on a Second Century Translation of the Septuagint with added books that were not part of the original. PS: The five books of Moses are called the Pentateuch, or the Torah. No wonder one gets them confused.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2020 1:04:52 GMT -5
again...they are 66 books written at different times and places and by different people... We are all aware of that, Wally! But do YOU read them as separate books and not as a whole? Of course you don't! You refer to it as THE BIBLE.
they are related to each other but not the same book...its a collection....
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 13, 2020 1:44:42 GMT -5
But the Septuagint does contain more than the five books of Moses. The Septuagint is "a Greek version of the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament), including the Apocrypha, made for Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt in the 3rd and 2nd centuries bc and adopted by the early Christian Churches." "The Greek Old Testament, or Septuagint (from the Latin: septuāgintā literally "seventy"; often abbreviated as 70 in Roman numerals, i.e., LXX), is the earliest extant Koine Greek translation of books from the Jewish Bible in Hebrew, various biblical apocrypha and deuterocanonical books." Bob being a respected research I thrust you will take the time and listen to a rabbi explain in much better detail then I can: www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGND-Htfr5wThat was a great lecture. Interestingly, I learned the same thing from a "Christian priest" in my religious studies classes. It's just unfortunate Christians actually know so little about the relationship of Christianity to Judaism. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Jan 13, 2020 1:47:31 GMT -5
“No one prophesied that the Buddha would arrive” Neither did anyone prophesied that the Jesus would arrive! Here’s the problem everyone who believes relies on that the Gospels were quoting from the Septuagint. However, how many of you know that is a bit of sleight of hand twisting the narrative to fit the story being sold? You say to me even the Jews agree that the Septuagint was a true and correct translation and this would be true. But here is what very few know, that the Septuagint only is the five books of Moses. Thus if your reading an English copy that says it is taken from the Septuagint and it contains more than the five books of Moses it’s a fraud! Where the Gospels say Jesus went to the temple and read from a scroll and then the Gospels quote Jesus reading from a Greek translation of the “Expanded Septuagint why didn't the Gospels writers explain that Jesus hadn’t been reading Hebrew in a long time so he called for a Greek translation to read from? See where is this is going? You cannot trust and English translation of the Bible that is based on the King James Translation that in turn is based on a Second Century Translation of the Septuagint with added books that were not part of the original. PS: The five books of Moses are called the Pentateuch, or the Torah. No wonder one gets them confused. Maybe it not important at all: Extant copies (dating from the 4th century CE) of the Septuagint contain books and additions that are not present in the Hebrew Bible, not being found in the Palestinian Jewish canon, and are not uniform in their contents. Some argue that the original Septuagint did not originally include these additional books. These copies of the Septuagint includes books called anagignoskomena in Greek, known in English as deuterocanon, itself derived from the Greek words for "second canon", because they are not included in the Jewish canon. Am I confusing the Pent form the Spet? perhaps I am it all seems to long ago to me.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 13, 2020 1:55:06 GMT -5
We are all aware of that, Wally! But do YOU read them as separate books and not as a whole? Of course you don't! You refer to it as THE BIBLE.
they are related to each other but not the same book...its a collection.... Well "Blow me down!" Do tell? Whatever will I learn next?
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 13, 2020 2:04:44 GMT -5
That was a great lecture. Interestingly, I learned the same thing from a "Christian priest" in my religious studies classes. It's just unfortunate Christians actually know so little about the relationship of Christianity to Judaism. Thanks. Why do Christians not understand that their religion is about the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? I know a lot of Christians would get violent if they were told their religion comes from the Jews.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 13, 2020 2:10:03 GMT -5
PS: The five books of Moses are called the Pentateuch, or the Torah. No wonder one gets them confused. Maybe it not important at all: Extant copies (dating from the 4th century CE) of the Septuagint contain books and additions that are not present in the Hebrew Bible, not being found in the Palestinian Jewish canon, and are not uniform in their contents. Some argue that the original Septuagint did not originally include these additional books. These copies of the Septuagint includes books called anagignoskomena in Greek, known in English as deuterocanon, itself derived from the Greek words for "second canon", because they are not included in the Jewish canon. Am I confusing the Pent form the Spet? perhaps I am it all seems to long ago to me. Penta = five. The five books of Moses. Septua = 70. Referring to the 70 (maybe 72) rabbis (or men) who selected the books for the Greek version of their Bible before the time of Jesus, for the benefit of the Jews in the Diaspora. Called the Septugint. The problem with the Septuagint was that it contained books that were not originally written iN Hebrew. But it was accepted by the Greek speaking Jews, and subsequently by the Roman church. And today it is the Catholic OT and Apokripha. (sp.) The Jews some time in the 2nd century CE (approx.) compiled another canon which left out all the books that were not originally written in Hebrew, and today that is the Old Testament that most Protestant churches us. Hebrews today call it the Tanack (sp), and that is their Bible. Torah = Hebrew law. This normally is used for the 5 books of Moses, but there is more torah than is included in the "Torah" - much of it oral.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 13, 2020 2:11:26 GMT -5
That was a great lecture. Interestingly, I learned the same thing from a "Christian priest" in my religious studies classes. It's just unfortunate Christians actually know so little about the relationship of Christianity to Judaism. Thanks. Why do Christians not understand that their religion is about the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? I know a lot of Christians would get violent if they were told their religion comes from the Jews. That's plain ignorant of them. Who have you met that would be that upset?
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Jan 13, 2020 2:28:02 GMT -5
That was a great lecture. Interestingly, I learned the same thing from a "Christian priest" in my religious studies classes. It's just unfortunate Christians actually know so little about the relationship of Christianity to Judaism. Thanks. Why do Christians not understand that their religion is about the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? I know a lot of Christians would get violent if they were told their religion comes from the Jews. Really?1? Christians usually support the Jews which is one of the things they like about Trump. Christians usually recognize the Jews as God's chosen people and support their return to Israel. The 7th Day Adventists are the only mainline church (if I can call it that as some people don't consider it mainline) that I know of without looking it up, that say God has rejected the Jews and the church is the new Israel.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Jan 13, 2020 3:29:03 GMT -5
Maybe it not important at all: Extant copies (dating from the 4th century CE) of the Septuagint contain books and additions that are not present in the Hebrew Bible, not being found in the Palestinian Jewish canon, and are not uniform in their contents. Some argue that the original Septuagint did not originally include these additional books. These copies of the Septuagint includes books called anagignoskomena in Greek, known in English as deuterocanon, itself derived from the Greek words for "second canon", because they are not included in the Jewish canon. Am I confusing the Pent form the Spet? perhaps I am it all seems to long ago to me. Penta = five. The five books of Moses. Septua = 70. Referring to the 70 (maybe 72) rabbis (or men) who selected the books for the Greek version of their Bible before the time of Jesus, for the benefit of the Jews in the Diaspora. Called the Septugint. The problem with the Septuagint was that it contained books that were not originally written iN Hebrew. But it was accepted by the Greek speaking Jews, and subsequently by the Roman church. And today it is the Catholic OT and Apokripha. (sp.) The Jews some time in the 2nd century CE (approx.) compiled another canon which left out all the books that were not originally written in Hebrew, and today that is the Old Testament that most Protestant churches us. Hebrews today call it the Tanack (sp), and that is their Bible. Torah = Hebrew law. This normally is used for the 5 books of Moses, but there is more torah than is included in the "Torah" - much of it oral. Okay Bob instead of rushing though my thoughts on this subject of the Bible’s reliability I now see I need to take my time and be more formal so others may judge if my facts hold. "Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher" so ordered King Ptolemy. And when it was handed to King Ptolemy on or about the annual feast of Tevel in the 3rd century BCE, and almost immediately the Rabbi’s regarded the translation as a distortion of their sacred text and not suitable for use in the synagogue. Then within the next 3 century’s Hebrew books other than the Torah were translated into Greek. I’ll admit from my research it is not conclusive of which was translated when or where; And Joel Kalvesmaki surmises some may even have been translated twice into different versions and then revised. And then continuing into the 3rd Century of our time the early church fathers were still fighting over the quality and style of the different translators and why they also varied considerably from book to book from a literal translation to paraphrasing to an interpretative style. It takes quite some study to see that during the translation process of the Septuagint itself and then from the Septuagint being edited into other versions one may make a distinction of the stages the process went through which can be broken down into several distinct stages, during which the social milieu of the translators shifted from Hellenistic Judaism to Early Christianity. Thus, one ends up with somewhere around 200 quotes that do not hold up to a fact check when compared with the Jewish Text. Is this not enough fact to show that the English Bible is not reliable? And I’ll ask again did Jesus read the Jewish scroll in the Temple or did he ask for a Greek translation? If my point is not made then I’m seemly not the one to make it.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 13, 2020 11:24:29 GMT -5
Why do Christians not understand that their religion is about the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? I know a lot of Christians would get violent if they were told their religion comes from the Jews. That's plain ignorant of them. Who have you met that would be that upset? Some 2x2s, I don’t think it ever dawned on them. There’s some Baptist, whether it was known to them is a guess. Then quite a few Catholics. I think the anti-Semitic people have been acquainted with Christianity but still harbor hatred toward the Jews. The last anti-Semitic attacker had been raised in a Christian home, so was reported. It just has been that people don’t catch that the Holy Bible is about the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I can’t figure that out. Unless they just haven’t really read the Bible?
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 13, 2020 11:28:23 GMT -5
Penta = five. The five books of Moses. Septua = 70. Referring to the 70 (maybe 72) rabbis (or men) who selected the books for the Greek version of their Bible before the time of Jesus, for the benefit of the Jews in the Diaspora. Called the Septugint. The problem with the Septuagint was that it contained books that were not originally written iN Hebrew. But it was accepted by the Greek speaking Jews, and subsequently by the Roman church. And today it is the Catholic OT and Apokripha. (sp.) The Jews some time in the 2nd century CE (approx.) compiled another canon which left out all the books that were not originally written in Hebrew, and today that is the Old Testament that most Protestant churches us. Hebrews today call it the Tanack (sp), and that is their Bible. Torah = Hebrew law. This normally is used for the 5 books of Moses, but there is more torah than is included in the "Torah" - much of it oral. Okay Bob instead of rushing though my thoughts on this subject of the Bible’s reliability I now see I need to take my time and be more formal so others may judge if my facts hold. "Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher" so ordered King Ptolemy. And when it was handed to King Ptolemy on or about the annual feast of Tevel in the 3rd century BCE, and almost immediately the Rabbi’s regarded the translation as a distortion of their sacred text and not suitable for use in the synagogue. Then within the next 3 century’s Hebrew books other than the Torah were translated into Greek. I’ll admit from my research it is not conclusive of which was translated when or where; And Joel Kalvesmaki surmises some may even have been translated twice into different versions and then revised. And then continuing into the 3rd Century of our time the early church fathers were still fighting over the quality and style of the different translators and why they also varied considerably from book to book from a literal translation to paraphrasing to an interpretative style. It takes quite some study to see that during the translation process of the Septuagint itself and then from the Septuagint being edited into other versions one may make a distinction of the stages the process went through which can be broken down into several distinct stages, during which the social milieu of the translators shifted from Hellenistic Judaism to Early Christianity. Thus, one ends up with somewhere around 200 quotes that do not hold up to a fact check when compared with the Jewish Text. Is this not enough fact to show that the English Bible is not reliable? And I’ll ask again did Jesus read the Jewish scroll in the Temple or did he ask for a Greek translation? If my point is not made then I’m seemly not the one to make it. Jesus spoke Armaic, the Jewish language, so I think the priests had the Jewish scrolls.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jan 13, 2020 11:30:46 GMT -5
Why do Christians not understand that their religion is about the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? I know a lot of Christians would get violent if they were told their religion comes from the Jews. Really?1? Christians usually support the Jews which is one of the things they like about Trump. Christians usually recognize the Jews as God's chosen people and support their return to Israel. The 7th Day Adventists are the only mainline church (if I can call it that as some people don't consider it mainline) that I know of without looking it up, that say God has rejected the Jews and the church is the new Israel. They get that from: Romans 9:6. Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel. It’s just individuals not churches that just haven’t realized the fact that the Holy Bible is about the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, which are predecessors of the Jews.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Jan 13, 2020 14:09:27 GMT -5
Only for those who are not fearful of the facts: www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPIRCS6WOwQYou may not like the host or the rabbi but they are very plain speaking easy to understand and give reference to where they take their facts from. If this rabbi is blowing smoke I'll be the first to apologize when I find him untrue to the facts.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jan 13, 2020 15:00:36 GMT -5
I think it's interesting you think Jesus is the example to follow when pretty much everything he said was said earlier by The Buddha. When I was exploring religions I really liked Buddhism's beliefs because they were about love and a good example to follow in life. But I never became one as I realized that they were just good ways to be in life and not required to get to heaven as I didn't believe there was an afterlife by that time. I remember thinking that reincarnation made more sense if the reason why we are here is to 'get it right' vs Christianity where someone has to shed blood to save you and give you one kick at the can to get it right. But none of it makes sense to me anymore so I live life to make it as good as I can for others and myself right now.
No one prophesied that the Buddha would arrive, he was not the son of God, he did no miracles, never claimed to be the Truth or a Savior, and is in his grave. The same could be said for Mohammad. So in my opinion, neither were the example Christ was, neither were perfect, neither voluntarily sacrificed themselves for the sake of others, "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission" (Hebrews 9:22).
Allegedly.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 13, 2020 15:48:14 GMT -5
I think it's interesting you think Jesus is the example to follow when pretty much everything he said was said earlier by The Buddha. When I was exploring religions I really liked Buddhism's beliefs because they were about love and a good example to follow in life. But I never became one as I realized that they were just good ways to be in life and not required to get to heaven as I didn't believe there was an afterlife by that time. I remember thinking that reincarnation made more sense if the reason why we are here is to 'get it right' vs Christianity where someone has to shed blood to save you and give you one kick at the can to get it right. But none of it makes sense to me anymore so I live life to make it as good as I can for others and myself right now. No one prophesied that the Buddha would arrive, he was not the son of God, he did no miracles, never claimed to be the Truth or a Savior, and is in his grave. The same could be said for Mohammad. So in my opinion, neither were the example Christ was, neither were perfect, neither voluntarily sacrificed themselves for the sake of others, "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission" (Hebrews 9:22).
But there is no proof that Jesus was anything other than a man like the other two and it's just a story that Christians tell and take ambiguous verses from the OT to try and say he was a prophecy. Which btw the Jews do not agree with you. Christians have hijacked the Hebrew God and made him talk and walk like the current version of the Christian God. Buddha came before Jesus and said many of the things Jesus said and he was a huge inspiration to just as many people longer than Jesus has been. So basically what you are claiming is obvious superiority of Jesus isn't really. It's even probable that the missing years were spent studying buddhism because it definitely had some of the ideas that were put forth by the Buddha.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 13, 2020 15:49:36 GMT -5
I believed. I know that. I wanted to be a worker. I was a very serious devout kid. I know what I believed. I also know that the pastors that I mentor also believed with all their heart. It was and still is quite traumatic for some of them. Your interpretation of the bible isn't necessarily right. There is no way anyone can tell me that they believed more than I did at one time. You are right, but you found out what you believed wasn't the truth. Doesn't mean you should throw the baby out with the bath water though. Just saying 😁 Why not? Where there is a couple of lies why trust the rest of it, especially with no proof?
|
|