Foundations

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
I doubt that any of the gospels are spesifc transcripts of what Jesus said. Viewing the bible as a historical source you have to doubt its reliability. You can't say with certainty if any of the Gospels are true accounts, and thus you have to choose between believeing the impossible or believing that they are not true. So its ridiculous to ask me to say e. Belief in the bible is a matter of faith, and it cannot be rationalised through evidence.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I doubt that any of the gospels are spesifc transcripts of what Jesus said.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I see no valid basis to take on your say so that it was all made up and fictitiously put into the mouth of Jesus.

You said the words of Jesus mixed with the concoctions of men. Now you revize that to say none of it was spoken by Jesus.

All I have is your word on that. Even if they did not have a tape recorder, I think we can trust the gospel writers to put down in adaquate form what Jesus said.

Do you think only you among men would be concerned to truthfully represent what such a man said? Do you think you're the only one who would be careful to pass on what such a important person said?

++++++++++++++++++++++=
All you can do is study the Gospels, spot the written styles of the various authors of Jesus' words and spot those little out of character moments when you prehaps spot a little of the historical Jesus. But the gospels are not accurate enough to say that 'this sentence was spoken by Jesus, but this word here was changed.'
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No that is not all you can do.

If Christ really meant "Behold I am with you all the days, even to the consummation of the age" you can pray to Him. You can call out to Him and confess your sins asking Him to make Himself real to you.

I don't know what you would have to lose.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lets not be ridiculous here. Belief in the bible is a matter of faith, and it cannot be rationalised through evidence.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yes. Let's not be rediculous. Jesus Christ had not let you have the option of dismissing Him as simply another holy man. His claims are too great. Either He was mad or a lunatic or a very evil deceiver.

But a little pat on the head and a dismissal of Jesus as another holy man - He hasn't really given you that option.


He says that the obstacle between you and He is your sins. Your sins form an insulation. Your sins form an obstacle. The problem of real guilt before God for real offenses before God. When the insulation of sins is dealt with through His redeeming blood there is no problem to our substantiating the reality of His presence.

Jesus says that the wall between you and the experience of God is your sins. He has made provision for that. If you refuse that provision the insulation remains, the separation remains.

Real guilt for real sins is the separation between you and the rich and enjoyable experience of Jesus Christ. It is nothing more interesting than that.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I doubt that any of the gospels are spesifc transcripts of what Jesus said.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I see no valid basis to take on your say so that it was all made up and fictitiously put into the mouth of Jesus.

You said the words of Jesus mixed with the concoctions of men. Now you revize that to sa ...[text shortened]... ich and enjoyable experience of Jesus Christ. It is nothing more interesting than that.[/b]

I actually didn't say that none of the words were those of Jesus I said 'I doubt that any of the gospels are spesifc transcripts of what Jesus said.' I already said I thought that Jesus calling the gentiles dogs could actually have been Jesus because its out of character with much of what else he said. How can you trust the gospel writers? Plenty of historical sources are inaccurate. You've never studied the bible from an unbiased veiw point as if it were any other source. You just have faith.


What do I have to lose by praying to Jesus? Well if your right, nothing. If Muslims are right I'll go to hell. If any other religion is right what will I gain? Do you think people choise their beliefs? Did you just select yours?


I believe I've said this, but I'll say it again. Jesus was a Jew. It is highly unlikly that a monotheistic Jew would claim to be the Son of God. It would go against all his beliefs. I do not think that Jesus claimed to be the son of God. It is much more likly that this is another of those prophesy furfilling additions. I don't dismiss Jesus. I want to understand who he really was.

I'm not going to coment on all the sin stuff, not sure of its relevance.

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
Jesus was a Jew. It is highly unlikly that a monotheistic Jew would claim to be the Son of God. It would go against all his beliefs. I do not think that Jesus claimed to be the son of God. It is much more likly that this is another of those prophesy furfilling additions. I don't dismiss Jesus. I want to understand who he really was.

Actually, he may indeed have made the claim -- regardless, the use of the term "Son of God" was very different in 30 CE than it is now. There were a number of other miracle-working guys called the "Son of God," and they weren't Jesus.

Originally posted by blakbuzzrd
Actually, he may indeed have made the claim -- regardless, the use of the term "Son of God" was very different in 30 CE than it is now. There were a number of other miracle-working guys called the "Son of God," and they weren't Jesus.

Well prehaps. But of what we know of Jesus he was very Jewish. He was against the Pharises and their pedantic follwing of the law even at the expense of human suffereing, but despite this he wasn't agaisnt Jewdaism. Whatever the term son of God meant back then, I doubt very much Jesus claimed to be divine.

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
He was against the Pharises and their pedantic follwing of the law even at the expense of human suffereing, but despite this he wasn't agaisnt Jewdaism. Whatever the term son of God meant back then, I doubt very much Jesus claimed to be divine.

He also probably wasn't as interested in fighting Pharisees as what we see in the gospels. Pharisees were pretty unimportant during J's lifetime. They only came into ascendancy in the latter half of the century.

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
I actually didn't say that none of the words were those of Jesus I said 'I doubt that any of the gospels are spesifc transcripts of what Jesus said.' I already said I thought that Jesus calling the gentiles dogs could actually have been Jesus because its out of character with much of what else he said. How can you trust the gospel writers? Plenty of his really was.

I'm not going to coment on all the sin stuff, not sure of its relevance.

++++++++++++++++++++++++
I already said I thought that Jesus calling the gentiles dogs could actually have been Jesus because its out of character with much of what else he said. How can you trust the gospel writers?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sounds like the account where He told the Gentile woman that the children's food should not be given to the little dogs underneath the table. Of course in that same story He did grant the woman (Gentile little dog) her request and even commended her for her faith.

Yes Jesus was full of surprises.

++++++++++++++++++++++
Plenty of historical sources are inaccurate.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Which ones concerning the New Testament do you find to be inaccurate?

Do you realize how many people the New Testament refers to who we can rest assured were actual historical people? I can draw out a chart for you if you wish.

Or you can pick up a copy of a book called "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Athiest" by Norm Giesler.

++++++++++++++++++++++
You've never studied the bible from an unbiased veiw point as if it were any other source. You just have faith.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

Isn't it YOU who have been very biased?

Oops got to go now. Talk with you latter.

Originally posted by blakbuzzrd
Actually, he may indeed have made the claim -- regardless, the use of the term "Son of God" was very different in 30 CE than it is now. There were a number of other miracle-working guys called the "Son of God," and they weren't Jesus.

In his book Jesus the Jew, Geza Vermes spent considerable time analyzing such phrases as “son of God” and “son of man,” and their idiomatic usages within a 1st century Hebraic context.

None of that renders jaywill’s interpretation (or the standard interpretation of Christianity) implausible—after all, there is also a strong Hellenistic influence in the earliest strands of Christianity that we have (i.e., the NT texts). It does render the “liar, crazy-man or divine” trilemma a false one. The hermeneutical possibilities are just not that rigid.

Originally posted by blakbuzzrd
He also probably wasn't as interested in fighting Pharisees as what we see in the gospels. Pharisees were pretty unimportant during J's lifetime. They only came into ascendancy in the latter half of the century.

I’m not convinced that the description of the Pharisees in the Gospels is entirely unbiased (or at least as applied to all Pharisees qua Pharisees). The Pharisees were attempting to de-emphasize the Temple cult as the center of Jewish religious practice.

After the fall of the Temple in 70 C.E., the only two Jewish groups surviving in any numbers were the Pharisees and the Jesus-people. They shared synagogues until about 83 C.E., when the rabbinical authorities expelled the Christians.

At the same time, Jesus was a Galilean; and the Pharisees were centered in Judea. Such other Galilean “hasids” as Hanninah ben Dosi and Honi the Circle Drawer were viewed as somewhat religiously lax by Judean standards. Nevertheless, one should not make too much of Pharisaical (or rabbinical) “legalism.” That seems to be a common misperception. After all, despite all the apparent “legalism,” Orthodox Jews today find Sabbath to be a joyful, celebratory spiritual experience (not to mention Conservative and Reform Jews).

The Talmud (at least the Halachik portions) are sometimes mis-characterized as a “law code.” In fact, the rabbinical debates therein are very process-oriented, forming the basis for continued interpretation and “oral Torah”—and there seldom seems to be any definitive conclusion on a “point of law.”

Also, Torah is not well translated as “law.” Teaching is better.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]+++++++++++++++++++
Incest has in fact been morally acceptable in several cultures. (I say incest because marriage itself may be a little specific) I believe in Papua New Guinea, there is a custom amongst one group that the first man a girl must sleep with is her father and this is seen as a good thing because the logic is that he will presumably not abu ...[text shortened]... ething in man is weak in fully living up to what his conscience tells him is proper.

Yes, they were sexual acts, but I think they've phased it out over the past few decades.
As for depending entirely as opposed to a degree, I'm sorry for how I phrased that, I mean that it is clear to me that morality is entirely a construct of society, but that is a personal perspective, the basis of my 'foundation'.
Your lying vs exaggerating, I'm not sure I understand this paragraph, could you rephrase? If you mean do I see a difference between a lie and a conscious exaggeration to to achieve the same purpose, I do see a difference, but it is academic. A lie is an attempt to mislead someone, whereas an exaggeration of this type would not necessarily be with malicious intent.
South American cultures, the aborigines who still live in the rainforest, apparently tie physically deformed babies to a post. They still feed it and keep it healthy, but they segregate it from society. It's also quite common for you to see the weak, whatever the case of that weakness, being harrassed by groups of youths. Within that peer group there's obviously no moral problem with it, even though society at large probably has a problem with it. (I know I got away from religion there, culture would have been a better word in my previous post)
Your last point I just don't agree with. If it is something that so many people do that it is impossible to prevent through whatever political or social means are at your disposal, then it is unlikely that it is morally wrong. That kind of argument could be used to say that homosexuality, or giving black people jobs is still immoral, it's just such a large amount of people go in for that kind of thing that we can't make it illegal.
But if you did a vox pop, I think you'd find that what people see as morally right and what their society does is in close relation.

Your very last paragraph suggests that there is a higher morality we aspire to but our nature prevents us from reaching it (for the moment) I'd say that morality is a democratic entity and is decided purely by people actions, or what actions they view as acceptable.

Originally posted by vistesd
I’m not convinced that the description of the Pharisees in the Gospels is entirely unbiased (or at least as applied to all Pharisees qua Pharisees). The Pharisees were attempting to de-emphasize the Temple cult as the center of Jewish religious practice.

After the fall of the Temple in 70 C.E., the only two Jewish groups surviving in any numbers ...[text shortened]... on a “point of law.”

Also, Torah is not well translated as “law.” Teaching is better.

Can you recomend any books on this topic? I don't really know too much of these spesific details.

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
Can you recomend any books on this topic? I don't really know too much of these spesific details.

I guess I’d start with David Ariel’s What Do Jews Believe?. That gives a pretty broad overview.

Chaim Potok’s Wanderings: A History of the Jews is good; for flavor, his novels (especially The Chosen and The Promise) are excellent.

For a playful look at Jewish midrashic exegesis, Burton Visotzky’s Reading the Book. Also Lawrence Kushner’s The River of Light.

For Talmud... ? I’m not a big Jacob Neusner fan, but the opening chapters of his Judaism’s Theological Voice: Singing Talmud are good. Marc-Alain Ouaknin’s The Burnt Book: Reading the Talmud is profound and quite scholarly (read: heavy going); I think it might have come out of his Ph.D. dissertation. One of the things that he stresses, which I like, is the rabbinical view of the “idolatry of the one right interpretation” in reading Torah/Talmud.

For the mystical side of things, Daniel Matt’s The Essential Kabbalah is good; also Shimon Shokek’s Kabbalah and the Art of Being: The Smithsonian Lectures; the latter may be the best presentation that I’ve seen of Jewish mystical non-dualistic theology.

EDIT: For some discussion of 1st century Judaism in Galilee and Judea, in the context of "the historical Jesus," the fore-mentioned Jesus the Jew by Geza Vermes is excellent; he followed it with several "sequels."

Originally posted by vistesd
I guess I’d start with David Ariel’s What Do Jews Believe?. That gives a pretty broad overview.

Chaim Potok’s Wanderings: A History of the Jews is good; for flavor, his novels (especially The Chosen and The Promise) are excellent.

For a playful look at Jewish midrashic exegesis, Burton Visotzky’s Reading the Book. ...[text shortened]... he latter may be the best presentation that I’ve seen of Jewish mystical non-dualistic theology.

Maybe you could also enlighten them about the Bible's origin in Sumerian Mythology.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Maybe you could also enlighten them about the Bible's origin in Sumerian Mythology.

Boy, are you reaching back a couple of years! 🙂

You know that, despite partial agreement with you on that (well, more than partial, in terms of shared and adapted mythologies), I simply stay in the midrashic paradigm. (I’ve always thought you over-emphasized the “ox-goad” thing a bit, too. 😉 )

To be fair, I recall that—aside from also directing me to relevant sources of Sumerian mythology—you did help me out with some Hebrew sources: on gematria, for one, if I’m not mistaken...

BTW, I re-read Valentinus’ The Gospel of Truth recently, and was struck by the parallel’s to the cosmogony of Luria’s kabbalah—which has such a broad stream in Judaism, as does the “perennial philosophy” generally. Be interesting to compare and contrast.

Originally posted by vistesd
Boy, are you reaching back a couple of years! 🙂

You know that, despite partial agreement with you on that (well, more than partial, in terms of shared and adapted mythologies), I simply stay in the midrashic paradigm. (I’ve always thought you over-emphasized the “ox-goad” thing a bit, too. 😉 )

To be fair, I recall that—aside from also directing ...[text shortened]... Judaism, as does the “perennial philosophy” generally. Be interesting to compare and contrast.

I just thought that in a thread entitled "Foundations " a brief mention of where the foundation came from. Maybe we should have a thread entitled " Footings" and write about it. lol

Originally posted by frogstomp
I just thought that in a thread entitled "Foundations " a brief mention of where the foundation came from. Maybe we should have a thread entitled " Footings" and write about it. lol

I like it! But we ought to have one for “stockings” as well!