Is the BIBLE an Idol?
Caiaphas
deemed that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Who deemed this? Wasn't the
Bible made into a book just a few hundred years ago? Instead of perceiving the
BIBLE, a book of words, Holy -- shouldn't the truly Holy part be the
*revelation* one takes from reading and studying the Bible?
Now, we say only God is perfect - no human can be considered perfect. Moses was
human and I am sure he too was not perfect. Jesus in the Gospels corrected
Moses commands on "Eye for Eye", Divorce, Adultury, Sabbath, and other things.
So, can we consider that some of what Moses said God said is in error? Or, are
we making Moses into a god?
If we can question the inerrancy of Moses, why not question Samuel when he told
Saul that God commands you to kill all the Amalek including women, children, and
infants? We can question this as it does not appear to be in the character of
God to command such things. Instead, I think this account was written this way
to justify blood-thirsty deeds done by the ancient Hebrews to their neighbors.
Jesus said of John the Baptist: "there has not risen anyone greater than John
the Baptist". Isn't this Christ's way of saying that something greater is about
to transpire? That there are problems with how we perceive and worship God?
This is my perception of the Bible. It is a book divided into 2 major
covenants - Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The New Covenant replaced the
Old when Christ died and rose again and when the Temple was destroyed in 70AD.
The Old Testament is intermixed with true revelations from God and mans
perception of Gods Will and we are to study the Old to separate the facts from
fictions. The New Testament is a) Teachings of Christ - the Gospels, a true
description of Gods Will because Jesus was God incarnated in human form, and b)
mans perceptions of Christ and his Teachings. So, the superior description of
Gods Will is contained in the Teachings of Christ. Any apparent disparity
between the Old Testament and the Teachings of Christ should be perceived as
errors in the Old Testament.
We Christians have got to avoid falling into the same trap that the Pharisees
and Teachers of the Law fell into during the time of Christ. Christ felt that
they were putting mans traditions and laws above Gods laws and misinterpreting
the Scriptures. We need to make sure that we do not make the Bible our idol nor
should we fail to understand the true Will of God.
Thore Schmechtig
> Are Christians and Jews making the BIBLE our modern-day Idol? [...]
> Instead of perceiving the
> BIBLE, a book of words, Holy -- shouldn't the truly Holy part be the
> *revelation* one takes from reading and studying the Bible? [...]
> We need to make sure that we do not make the Bible our idol nor
> should we fail to understand the true Will of God.
Wise words! Maybe at least some of the bible-thumpers here will think
about your questions... though I doubt it :(
--
Bye
Tocis (star...@carcosa.de)
Adario
"Caiaphas" <Caiap...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_2uVa.898$V_4....@eagle.america.net...
> Are Christians and Jews making the BIBLE our modern-day Idol? Tradition
has
> deemed that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Who deemed this?
Wasn't the
> Bible made into a book just a few hundred years ago?
A collection of books written between 2,600-2,100 B.C., about. Some in part
copied from non-Jewish scriptures, adapted to Jewish beliefs and culture.
Instead of perceiving the
> BIBLE, a book of words, Holy -- shouldn't the truly Holy part be the
> *revelation* one takes from reading and studying the Bible?
>
> Now, we say only God is perfect - no human can be considered perfect.
Moses was
> human and I am sure he too was not perfect. Jesus in the Gospels
corrected
> Moses commands on "Eye for Eye", Divorce, Adultury, Sabbath, and other
things.
> So, can we consider that some of what Moses said God said is in error?
Or, are
> we making Moses into a god?
Are you sure the Moses of the Bible was a human being? How about Moses being
symbolic like Moses being the Pentateuch?
>
> If we can question the inerrancy of Moses, why not question Samuel when he
told
> Saul that God commands you to kill all the Amalek including women,
children, and
> infants? We can question this as it does not appear to be in the
character of
> God to command such things. Instead, I think this account was written
this way
> to justify blood-thirsty deeds done by the ancient Hebrews to their
neighbors.
>
I don't think so. Depends what Amalek represented. If the name Amalek is a
generic for some Canaanite gods or if Amalek represented the worshippers of
a Canaanite god(s), I don't see why the stories in which the name Amalek is
mentioned would have been written to justify blood-thirsty deeds. It is true
that Jews as well as Christians have justified their wars, murders, and
genocides with biblical texts. When Jews, after the Babylonian Exile, upheld
the Pentateuch, Amalek got getting a beating. That's my interpretation of
Amalek's narrative in Exodus.
It is obvious that OT narrators wrote epics, not historical accounts
> Jesus said of John the Baptist: "there has not risen anyone greater than
John
> the Baptist". Isn't this Christ's way of saying that something greater is
about
> to transpire? That there are problems with how we perceive and worship
God?
>
> This is my perception of the Bible. It is a book divided into 2 major
> covenants - Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The New Covenant replaced
the
> Old when Christ died and rose again and when the Temple was destroyed in
70AD.
The authors of the New Testament saw it as a continuity of the OT, a New
Covenant.
> The Old Testament is intermixed with true revelations from God and mans
> perception of Gods Will and we are to study the Old to separate the facts
from
> fictions. The New Testament is a) Teachings of Christ - the Gospels, a
true
> description of Gods Will because Jesus was God incarnated in human form,
and b)
> mans perceptions of Christ and his Teachings.
b) the revelation of Christ's perceptions is more like it.
> So, the superior description of
> Gods Will is contained in the Teachings of Christ. Any apparent disparity
> between the Old Testament and the Teachings of Christ should be perceived
as
> errors in the Old Testament.
>
Understood as man's perceptions. A Covenant with a Law subject to change.
Deu 18:15 The LORD your God will raise up to you a prophet from the midst of
you, of your brothers, like me; to him you shall listen;
> We Christians have got to avoid falling into the same trap that the
Pharisees
> and Teachers of the Law fell into during the time of Christ. Christ felt
that
> they were putting mans traditions and laws above Gods laws and
misinterpreting
> the Scriptures. We need to make sure that we do not make the Bible our
idol nor
> should we fail to understand the true Will of God.
Agree. The OT is not a history book and was not written by God but by
inspired human beings having their perception of God and perception of God's
will.
>
>
>
Jim
"Caiaphas" <Caiap...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_2uVa.898$V_4....@eagle.america.net...
Thore Schmechtig
You know, when people counter every statement, every problem, every
(insert term of your choice here), with a more or less fitting bible
quote, observers get at least the impression that these people
_worship_ the bible.
I do not refer to your person right now, but in general to people in
these newsgroups who behave like christianity was all about quoting the
correct bible verse...
Libertarius
===>Would a true biblicist "desecrate"
even his copy of the Bible?
Mark
Jim <ji...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:vid7i1t...@corp.supernews.com...
> Since when do we worship the Bible?
Since somebody wants you to believe what he tells you to believe.
Mark
has
> deemed that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Who deemed this?
Either God did or He didn't, get over it.
> Wasn't the
> Bible made into a book just a few hundred years ago?
You mean you don't know??? Who are you to sit in judgement on the bible
when you don't
even know when it was written and cannonized.
Mark
M. Clark
Consider that Jesus quoted the Scriptures quite often.
M. Clark
zayton
"Adario" <Uni...@Cy-cit-Rot.com> wrote in message
news:2vvVa.2221$mv6.5...@news20.bellglobal.com...
zayton
"M. Clark" <idont...@toemail.com> wrote in message
news:1fyvzat.1mphv6kuxlw1aN%idont...@toemail.com...
Quoted or paraphrased..
And sometimes he followed the quote of paraphrase with,"but I say unto you".
>
> M. Clark
zayton
"Mark" <do...@spam.me> wrote in message
news:K4EVa.4500$Fy1.207832@localhost...
>
> Caiaphas <Caiap...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:_2uVa.898$V_4....@eagle.america.net...
> > Are Christians and Jews making the BIBLE our modern-day Idol? Tradition
> has
> > deemed that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Who deemed this?
>
> Either God did or He didn't, get over it.
Did or didn't do what?
If you mean write the Bible, then, of course he didn't.
>
> > Wasn't the
> > Bible made into a book just a few hundred years ago?
>
> You mean you don't know???
>This sounded like a rhetorical question to me.
>Who are you to sit in judgement on the bible
Who proposed sitting in judgement on the Bible?
> when you don't
> even know when it was written and cannonized.
They shot it out of a cannon? Well, now, that sounds sort of disrespectful.
Joe
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
Thore Schmechtig
> Consider that Jesus quoted the Scriptures quite often.
Oh yes, but he did _more_ than just that. Much more. And on more than
one occasion he in fact corrected the OT. That's quite a difference to
just quoting, quoting, quoting, don't you think?
--
Bye
Tocis (star...@carcosa.de)
Caiaphas
"zayton" <zay...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:rC2Wa.6746$BY2....@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
One can make a case that the 'content' of the Old Testament contains
Trancendental Teachings so radically different and so much in the perspective of
a god-like revelation. I personally see a higher level of philosophy in the
New Testament.
Pastor Frank
news:bg60c7$l4qp7$2...@ID-87341.news.uni-berlin.de...
--
Pastor Frank
THE GOLDEN RULE
Jesus in Mk 12:30: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,
and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength:
this is the first commandment.
31: And the second is alike, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Pastor Frank
because they always reference their judgment to them. Humanists who only
quote each other, are they "worshipping" each other? Secular humanists only
voice their own opinions. Are they "worshipping" themselves? Christians
reference to the Bible, and we don't "worship" the Bible but try to live by
its philosophy of life. What serves as reference to your philosophy of life?
Pastor Frank
> Jim <ji...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:vid7i1t...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Since when do we worship the Bible?
>
> Since somebody wants you to believe what he tells you to believe.
>
tells you to believe"? I pity your parents who tried to tell you to be "a
good boy". You must have been a little monster. LOL
Thore Schmechtig
> > > Are Christians and Jews making the BIBLE our modern-day Idol? [...]
> > Wise words! [...]
> Are you a revisionist?
I don't know exactly how you define "revisionist".
As for my faith, I was a German protestant until about two months ago
when I felt, almost like a revelation, that I belong to the Asatruar by
heart. However, I would like to continue seeing Christians as
"friendly" people. The bible-thumpers make this very very difficult for
me. (Fortunately there are very few of them in Germany)
--
Bye
Tocis (star...@carcosa.de)
Thore Schmechtig
> > You know, when people counter every statement, every problem, every
> > (insert term of your choice here), with a more or less fitting bible
> > quote, observers get at least the impression that these people
> > _worship_ the bible.
> LOL That's like saying judges "worship" the written law of the country,
> because they always reference their judgment to them. [...]
> ...we don't "worship" the Bible but try to live by
> its philosophy of life.
If this means that you base your decisions and behavior on the bible,
but do not slavishly obey the letter of the book, then indeed I'd say
you do not "worship" the bible. Sadly, many others here seem to favor
the letter over the philosophy.
> What serves as reference to your philosophy of life?
Very loosely, the Edda.
More specifically, the main virtues of the Asatruar: Courage, Truth,
Honor, Loyalty, Discipline, Hospitality, Industriousness,
Self-reliance, and Steadfastness.
--
Bye
Tocis (star...@carcosa.de)
M. Clark
Ok, but just so you know, I rarely reference the verse numbers at all
outside the newsgroups. Indeed, I most often paraphrase verses anyway.
I use number references in newsgroups partly just to minimize bandwidth
as opposed to posting a whole verse.
The bottom line is that the Scriptures are worthless, in my opinion,
unless Jesus' Holy Spirit opens your mind to them anyway. The Pharisees
unwittingly proved this. Indeed, I worship God as opposed to a book.
Return to God, believing in his Son Jesus in faith, and have eternal
life.
M. Clark
> >
> > M. Clark
M. Clark
> Hi,
>
> > Consider that Jesus quoted the Scriptures quite often.
>
> Oh yes, but he did _more_ than just that. Much more. And on more than
> one occasion he in fact corrected the OT. That's quite a difference to
> just quoting, quoting, quoting, don't you think?
Thank you for replying.
Jesus never corrected the OT. In fact, Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-19
that the Scriptures are essentially immutable. What Jesus did change
was the "traditions of men" that had wrongly become more important than
the Scriptures as Jesus had indicated in Mark 7:9 and its context.
Caiaphas
> Thore Schmechtig <star...@carcosa.de> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Consider that Jesus quoted the Scriptures quite often.
> >
> > Oh yes, but he did _more_ than just that. Much more. And on more than
> > one occasion he in fact corrected the OT. That's quite a difference to
> > just quoting, quoting, quoting, don't you think?
>
> Thank you for replying.
>
> Jesus never corrected the OT. In fact, Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-19
> that the Scriptures are essentially immutable. What Jesus did change
> was the "traditions of men" that had wrongly become more important than
> the Scriptures as Jesus had indicated in Mark 7:9 and its context.
I believe that Jesus did correct the OT --- example are Moses commandment on
punishing adulterers, on divorce, and on 'eye for eye'.
Most of what the ancient Pharasiees did wrong was to study the scriptures to the
'letter' (legalistally and literally) instead of following the 'intent' of Gods
Will. God wanted man to worship His kingdom - not some man made kingdom such as
Jewish culture and traditions.
zayton
"Pastor Frank" <pfr...@christfirst.com> wrote in message
news:atbWa.5985$Ro3....@nntp-post.primus.ca...
> "Thore Schmechtig" <star...@carcosa.de> wrote in message
> news:bg60c7$l4qp7$2...@ID-87341.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > Hi Caiaphas,
> >
> > > Are Christians and Jews making the BIBLE our modern-day Idol? [...]
> > > Instead of perceiving the
> > > BIBLE, a book of words, Holy -- shouldn't the truly Holy part be the
> > > *revelation* one takes from reading and studying the Bible? [...]
> > > We need to make sure that we do not make the Bible our idol nor
> > > should we fail to understand the true Will of God.
> >
> > Wise words! Maybe at least some of the bible-thumpers here will think
> > about your questions... though I doubt it :(
> >
> Are you a revisionist?
> --
> Pastor Frank
Is faith a fossil?
zayton
> "Thore Schmechtig" <star...@carcosa.de> wrote in message
> news:bg6oq7$lf8s1$3...@ID-87341.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > Since when do we worship the Bible?
> >
> > You know, when people counter every statement, every problem, every
> > (insert term of your choice here), with a more or less fitting bible
> > quote, observers get at least the impression that these people
> > _worship_ the bible.
> > I do not refer to your person right now, but in general to people in
> > these newsgroups who behave like christianity was all about quoting the
> > correct bible verse...
> >
> LOL That's like saying judges "worship" the written law of the
country,
> because they always reference their judgment to them.
If they regard the law as perfect and self evident in meaning without
interpretation, they they do attribute to it the q uality of a god. If
they regard their interpretation of it as perfect, then it is their own
inntelledt they worship.
Humanists who only
> quote each other, are they "worshipping" each other?Secular humanists only
> voice their own opinions. Are they "worshipping" themselves?
Possibly. It depends.
Christians
> reference to the Bible, and we don't "worship" the Bible
If you regard it as inerrant, and a perfect revelation of God's will, Then
you do. If you have no doubts about your understanding of it, then it is
your own mind you worship.
zayton
Well said.
Thore Schmechtig
> that the Scriptures are essentially immutable. What Jesus did change
> was the "traditions of men" that had wrongly become more important than
> the Scriptures as Jesus had indicated in Mark 7:9 and its context.
Read on for but one or two pages and you find the exact opposite in
Matthew 5:38-39. That's but one of many examples.
That's the problem with every scripture. Depending on what verse you
quote you can (dis-)prove everything. For this reason I distrust
scripture and (often) people who base their whole life entirely on
scripture.
zayton
But literalists have had it drummed into their heads that if you doubt that
a single word of it is literally true it all becomes worthless; and by
literally true, they really mean that whatever most naturally takes shape in
their minds as they read is the "plain meaning" of the text, without
realizing that this really grants authority to their preconceptions, rather
than the text.
Thore Schmechtig
> But literalists have had it drummed into their heads that if you doubt that
> a single word of it is literally true it all becomes worthless; and by
> literally true, they really mean that whatever most naturally takes shape in
> their minds as they read is the "plain meaning" of the text, without
> realizing that this really grants authority to their preconceptions, rather
> than the text.
Correct. Unfortunately correct.
--
Bye
Tocis (star...@carcosa.de)
Caiaphas
> The bottom line is that the Scriptures are worthless, in my opinion,
> unless Jesus' Holy Spirit opens your mind to them anyway. The Pharisees
> unwittingly proved this. Indeed, I worship God as opposed to a book.
Well said. You stated it more clearly than I did.
Caiaphas
I, like you, believe the 'literalists' are in error. The Bible was written
under inspiration by man. But, man is not perfect nor is everything he wrote
under Gods inspiration. I believe some of it was inspired by God, and some of
it not inspired by God but instead written for an earthly purpose. I think
putting the Bible into its true context makes worshiping God easier and more
believable. When one reads of the blood-thirsty acts in the OT, it is hard to
believe they were inspired by God. Realizing that much of the OT is mans
perception of God rather than Gods Words puts the Bible in its true perspective
and not as an idol.
Caiaphas
"Pastor Frank" <pfr...@christfirst.com> wrote in message
news:dtbWa.5986$Ro3....@nntp-post.primus.ca...
> Christians reference to the Bible, and we don't "worship" the Bible but try to
live by
> its philosophy of life. What serves as reference to your philosophy of life?
> --
> Pastor Frank
I like the way you stated that - make the Bible a reference to ones 'philosophy
of life'. This way we recognize that humans excelled and failed in the Bible
and we separate the good and evil on how we are revealed Gods Will. We don't
need to make the Bible more than it is and we don't need to defend it as
literally true. The next step up would be to discuss our revealations from the
Bible.
Pastor Frank
private interpretation. We Christians follow Christ, because Jesus not only
defines those virtues but demonstrated them as well, to the death.
You could consider yourself an altruistic, generous, philanthropic
person for tossing a nickel into a beggar's hat every Christmas.
The only "Rock" immutable standard is Jesus.
--
Pastor Frank
Jesus in Lk:4:18: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath
anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the
broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of
sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised
All we need to ask is: What would Jesus do?, to get the right answer.
Jack
Frank, if you followed Christ, you would live according to the 613
Commandments of the Old Testament, which you disavow. You would also refrain
from telling lies. Frank everytime you call yourself "Pastor" you are telling
a lie. It is hypocritical for you to write of virtues in the same posting in
which you demonstrate that you refuse to live by those virtues.
> You could consider yourself an altruistic, generous, philanthropic
>person for tossing a nickel into a beggar's hat every Christmas.
> The only "Rock" immutable standard is Jesus.
..And in Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus said to obey all 613 Commandments in the OT,
including the prohibition against celebrating Christmas.
>--
>Pastor Frank
>
M. Clark
Thank you for replying.
I appreciate your concern about Matthew 5:38-39. However, it was
pointed out to me awhile back that whenever Jesus started out saying
"You have heard that it was said," that he is identifying an OT teaching
that had been taken out of context; a teaching of man in other words.
indeed, with respect to the example of Mark 7:2-23, the Pharisees had
misunderstood the type of cleanliness that ceremonial cleanliness was
intended to address which was cleanliness of the heart, not cleanliness
of the hands. Indeed contrast Mark 7:2,5 with 7:18-23.
M. Clark
Thore Schmechtig
> > > What serves as reference to your philosophy of life?
> > Very loosely, the Edda. [...]
> All these are mere words that are subject to your own personal and
> private interpretation. We Christians follow Christ, because Jesus not only
> defines those virtues but demonstrated them as well, to the death.
...or so the bible tells us. :/
Well, however... not knowing you I give you the benefit of the doubt ;)
and assume you indeed use the example of Jesus as a guideline for your
life. As it's doubtlessly easier in our times to get by without such
self-imposed limits, I salute you. This world would look a whole lot
better with more people like you seem to be :)
> You could consider yourself an altruistic, generous, philanthropic
> person for tossing a nickel into a beggar's hat every Christmas.
Aaaw, no. Won't try to silence my conscience by spending mere money. I
serve as volunteer medic since '95 - much better than donating any sum
I think, and definitely the more difficult way ;)
> The only "Rock" immutable standard is Jesus.
Pity that many people see it different.
Anyway, may you be blessed by the Divine whatever its true name and
nature.
(deliberately using a "neutral" term here to "meet in the middle"
between my Asatruar and your Christian worldview ;) )
--
Bye
Tocis (star...@carcosa.de)
Thore Schmechtig
> I appreciate your concern about Matthew 5:38-39. However, it was
> pointed out to me awhile back that whenever Jesus started out saying
> "You have heard that it was said," that he is identifying an OT teaching
> that had been taken out of context; a teaching of man in other words.
Without looking it all up by myself I trust you to be correct :)
Nice if one has a teacher of whatever kind who can clearly divide
between the verses that have to be obeyed and the other verses... in
the time of the NT Jesus was the teacher. Who's our teacher today? Far
too many alternatives... :/
--
Bye
Tocis (star...@carcosa.de)
Jack
Actually the entirety of Matthew, chapter 5, drives at a single Message:
The Law is just the barest minimum satandard of behavior.
To place this in context:
According to the Oral Law of the Jews Exodus 21:22-25 which covers bodily
injury, has always been interpreted by the Jews to mean that the monetary
value of the dammage was paid as determined by a Jewish court, but that since
the person also sinned against God by harming his fellow man, who was created
in the image of God, he still remains guilty until God forgives him. This is
because the Jewish court was never empowered to maim anyone and thus could not
literally carry out these punishments. See Bava Kamma 83a and 83b. The
hebrew text does support the talmudic interpretation. It should also be
noted that an injured person was never required to seek restitution for his
injuries.
So, according to Jesus, while the guilty party must still repay all dammages
assessed by the court, the injured party is to forgive and not exercize his
right to seek restitution. Therefore Jesus never abrogated what the Old
Testament said.
Pastor Frank
> "Pastor Frank" <pfr...@christfirst.com> wrote in message
> news:dtbWa.5986$Ro3....@nntp-post.primus.ca...
> >
> > Christians reference to the Bible, and we don't "worship" the Bible but
try to
> > live by its philosophy of life. What serves as reference to your
philosophy of
> > life?
>
'philosophy
> of life'. This way we recognize that humans excelled and failed in the
Bible
> and we separate the good and evil on how we are revealed Gods Will. We
don't
> need to make the Bible more than it is and we don't need to defend it as
> literally true. The next step up would be to discuss our revealations
from the
> Bible.
>
date, but a piece of great literary art, which is now, and will always be,
wholly relevant and true.
Art by its very nature is "inerrant", as none, apart from its creator,
can talk of its errors and possible correction of them. Which great poem,
play, painting or music can we judge erroneous and in need of correction?
All we can do is like or dislike art. Professional art critics NEVER judge
art in terms of errors, but in terms of it being meaningful or meaningless.
The fact remains, that holy scripture is what it is, and only our
interpretation of it can be in error, never the work itself.
--
Pastor Frank
2Tm:3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable
for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Jesus in Jn:5:39: Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have
eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.505 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/30/03
Caiaphas
Hmmm, I see it a little differently. Scripture is mans perception of doing Gods
Will. Some of it was valid, and some of it was sinfully doing mans will but
saying it was Gods Will. Take your own personal revelations from God as an
example. I am sure you thought some were true revelations from God and they
were. Also, I would think that you thought you had a true revelation from God
but it turned out to not be the case. How about a famous evangleist Jerry
Falwell? Do you think everything that Falwell says is words from God? I would
hope not and just like Falwell, the ancient Patriarchs were not perfect either
and not all they wrote was from God. Something I have always had a problem with
was the justification of the ancient Hebrews killing off other peoples and
saying it was Gods Will. There are translation errors and factual errors in the
Bible. Perhaps one can say that they appear to be errors with our limited
understanding but at my level of knowledge and understanding, I can state a few:
-- Ezra 2:60 vs Neh 7:61 = the number 652 versus 642
-- 1 Chron 21:1 vs 2 Sam 24:1 = Satan verus Lord
-- Gen 7:2 = Noah, 7 of every clean, 2 of others
-- Exo 20 vs Deu 5 = KJV: "Thou shalt not kill" verus NIV: "You shall not
murder"
-- 1 Sam 31 vs 2 Sam 1:10 = conflicting accounts of Sauls death
Pastor Frank
invitation to state your personal preferences without rhyme nor reason, nor
reference.
Let's see you deal with the problem of a belief system that allows
everyone to interpret those virtues you list above in a self-serving manner,
and the Christian belief system in comparison, which requires we follow
Jesus Christ by asking: "What Would Jesus Do"?, and do it, whether we like
to or not.
--
Pastor Frank
GOD
Jesus in Jn:4:24: God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship
him in spirit and in truth.
Jesus in John 14:7: If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also:
and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8: Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9: Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast
thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and
how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
10: Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the
words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that
dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
1Jn:4:8: He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
1Jn:4:16: And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God
is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
Acts:17:28: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain
also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Pastor Frank
NT. I have a feeling we are not connecting here. Since when is what Jerry
Falwell or the ancient Patriarchs say Holy Scripture of the NT, and of and
about Christ?
Your cannot call the NT erroneous, for that would open the door to
private interpretations by revisionists who would take it upon themselves to
"correct" the NT, until it becomes unrecognisable.
It is up to us to interpret the NT in the spirit of the authors and in
the Holy Spirit of Christ. If we find what appears an error, it is better to
leave it alone and pray for understanding, than to dismiss it as an error,
or worse yet, seek to "correct" it..
zayton
> "Thore Schmechtig" <star...@carcosa.de> wrote in message
> news:bgeb2n$neu86$1...@ID-87341.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > Anyway, may you be blessed by the Divine whatever its true name and
> > nature.
> > (deliberately using a "neutral" term here to "meet in the middle"
> > between my Asatruar and your Christian worldview ;) )
> >
> This is a philosophical NG and a philosophical discussion, not an
> invitation to state your personal preferences without rhyme nor reason,
nor
> reference.
> Let's see you deal with the problem of a belief system that allows
> everyone to interpret those virtues you list above in a self-serving
manner,
> and the Christian belief system in comparison, which requires we follow
> Jesus Christ by asking: "What Would Jesus Do"?, and do it, whether we like
> to or not.
Sorry, but this also gets interpreted in a self-serving manner.
zayton
> >
> I am a Christian, and thus when I talk about Holy Scripture I mean the
> NT.
Most of Christendom regards the Hebrew Bible as Holy Scripture.
In fact, whenever the New testament uses the term "Scripture" it is always
speaking of the Hebrew Bible.
I have a feeling we are not connecting here. Since when is what Jerry
> Falwell or the ancient Patriarchs say Holy Scripture of the NT, and of and
> about Christ?
> Your cannot call the NT erroneous,
The New Testament was written by human beings and like any human work
contains errors of fact.
There, I think I just did call the New Testament erronious.
for that would open the door to
> private interpretations by revisionists who would take it upon themselves
to
> "correct" the NT, until it becomes unrecognisable.
Everyone does this anyway. They just don't admit it.
> It is up to us to interpret the NT in the spirit of the authors and in
> the Holy Spirit of Christ.
Agreed.
If we find what appears an error, it is better to
> leave it alone and pray for understanding, than to dismiss it as an error,
On what authority do you say this.
Thore Schmechtig
> everyone to interpret those virtues you list above in a self-serving manner,
> and the Christian belief system in comparison, which requires we follow
> Jesus Christ by asking: "What Would Jesus Do"?, and do it, whether we like
> to or not.
Et tu brute?!
What a pity... you _sounded_ different than the bible-thumpers.
Obviously you know nothing about Asatru but believe you're able to
judge my faith. Well, go ahead if you wish, shake hands with the
quoting madmen.
Caiaphas
I think I understand you - I too am a New Covenant Christian.
> I have a feeling we are not connecting here. Since when is what Jerry
> Falwell or the ancient Patriarchs say Holy Scripture of the NT, and of and
> about Christ?
I used Jerry Falwell as an example. Falwell is a well known Christian that is
followed by a lot of people. Jerry makes mistakes and it is understandable as
he is human. So too were the ancient patriarchs - they were human too and I
would sumise that they had similar failings as Jerry Falwell, and you and I.
Regarding the Bible, I maintain that it is not the book that is holy, nor the
words -- instead it is the revelation you get from reading the Bible that is
holy.
> Your cannot call the NT erroneous, for that would open the door to
> private interpretations by revisionists who would take it upon themselves to
> "correct" the NT, until it becomes unrecognisable.
> It is up to us to interpret the NT in the spirit of the authors and in
> the Holy Spirit of Christ. If we find what appears an error, it is better to
> leave it alone and pray for understanding, than to dismiss it as an error,
> or worse yet, seek to "correct" it..
Lets not idolize the Bible. Its not the book or the words that is the greatest
importance but the revelation from reading those words. In any case, there are
varied revelations from reading the New Testament and the Old Testament anyway.
Look at all the various sects in Christianity and Judaism. Within Christianity,
we have varied endtimes revelations and various Protestants believe things
slightly differently. Many of this is just semantics but people are revealed
differently.
Pastor Frank
> "Pastor Frank" <pfr...@christfirst.com> wrote in message
> news:0IGWa.10484$AI2....@nntp-post.primus.ca...
> >
> > everyone to interpret those virtues you list above in a self-serving
> manner,
> > and the Christian belief system in comparison, which requires we follow
> > Jesus Christ by asking: "What Would Jesus Do"?, and do it, whether we
like
> > to or not.
>
> Sorry, but this also gets interpreted in a self-serving manner.
>
least in that eventuality, we would know, that we are deliberately being
obtuse and sinning.
--
Pastor Frank
Jesus in Jn:11:25: Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life:
he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
Pastor Frank
>
> Everyone does this anyway. They just don't admit it.
>
instead of preaching abstinence. LOL
Do you realize you are posting this to religious NGs? You are not one of
those pesky atheists are you, who advises, that since we are all sinners and
liars, we might as well make sinning fun and lie about it blatantly.
--
Pastor Frank
Jesus in Jn:11:25: Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life:
he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
Contad Diction
> "zayton" <zay...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:rUGWa.12557$rJ4....@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com...
>>
>> Everyone does this anyway. They just don't admit it.
>>
> That sounds like you're in favour of handing our condoms in schools
> instead of preaching abstinence. LOL
?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Frank, your getting really bizzare now.
> Do you realize you are posting this to religious NGs? You are not one
> of
> those pesky atheists are you, who advises, that since we are all sinners
> and liars, we might as well make sinning fun and lie about it blatantly.
And you would have got away with it too if it wasn't for those pesky
atheists :)
Regards
--
Jessica L. Price
Heilsa! :-)
So what brings you here? I thought everyone in these groups was Christian
or atheist.
A word about Frank: he doesn't seem to be a bad guy, and I think he's
doing what he honestly believes is right. That said, it doesn't make it
easy for non-Christians to deal with him.
Bear in mind that his religion insists that you are going to hell and that
he feels he has to do whatever is necessary to get you to change that. If
you keep that in mind, he can be quite interesting to talk to, if a little
abrasive at times.
Anyway, nice to see you here, and happy Freyfaxi (it *is* this weekend,
isn't it? My knowledge of Asatru isn't that good, but I seem to remember
it being around the beginning of August.) Take Frank with understanding
and a few grains of salt and you'll be fine.
Regards,
Jessica
Richard Hutnik
> "Pastor Frank" <pfr...@christfirst.com> wrote in message
> news:0IGWa.10484$AI2....@nntp-post.primus.ca...
> > "Thore Schmechtig" <star...@carcosa.de> wrote in message
> > news:bgeb2n$neu86$1...@ID-87341.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > Pity that many people see it different.
> > > Anyway, may you be blessed by the Divine whatever its true name and
> > > nature.
> > > (deliberately using a "neutral" term here to "meet in the middle"
> > > between my Asatruar and your Christian worldview ;) )
> > >
> > This is a philosophical NG and a philosophical discussion, not an
> > invitation to state your personal preferences without rhyme nor reason,
> nor
> > reference.
> > Let's see you deal with the problem of a belief system that allows
> > everyone to interpret those virtues you list above in a self-serving
> manner,
> > and the Christian belief system in comparison, which requires we follow
> > Jesus Christ by asking: "What Would Jesus Do"?, and do it, whether we like
> > to or not.
>
> Sorry, but this also gets interpreted in a self-serving manner.
I am remindered of a story involving Tony Campolo when he was drafted.
He was trying to ask what Jesus would do. When he went to the draft
office, he asked them if Jesus would drop bombs on other nations or
shoot them with bullets. The military people said either. Then he
said he couldn't do such either. Well, I paraphrase the story. "What
Would Jesus Do?" is a good question, but as you said, it could be used
in a self-serving matter.
- Richard Hutnik
Pastor Frank
>
> Lets not idolize the Bible.
>
It has the same relevance as the Lawbook has in the Judge's chambers. No
judge dismisses the written law in favour of his own judgment.
> Its not the book or the words that is the greatest
> importance but the revelation from reading those words.
>
Naturally. That applies to the written law also.
In any case, there are
> varied revelations from reading the New Testament and the Old Testament
anyway.
> Look at all the various sects in Christianity and Judaism. Within
Christianity,
> we have varied endtimes revelations and various Protestants believe things
> slightly differently. Many of this is just semantics but people are
revealed
> differently.
>
Again, all true. Despite the law books, not all judges will come to the
same judgment all the time, that is understood, but that does NOT obviate
the high respect in which a country's legislative law is held.
I want to hold holy scripture in the same high regard as Christ did. See
below
zayton
> "zayton" <zay...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:rUGWa.12557$rJ4....@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com...
> >
> > Everyone does this anyway. They just don't admit it.
> >
> That sounds like you're in favour of handing our condoms in schools
> instead of preaching abstinence. LOL
Even though you've stripped away all points of reference for the line you
quote, I'm pretty sure the subject wasn't teenage promiscuity.
But since you bring it up, I'm favor of both. Even though the best response
we can expect from most teens to preaching abstinence is amusement, it
remains appropriate for us to continue to do so. The condoms, on the other
hand, may actually do some good.
> Do you realize you are posting this to religious NGs? You are not one
of
> those pesky atheists are you, who advises, that since we are all sinners
and
> liars, we might as well make sinning fun and lie about it blatantly.
I'm a United Methodist pastor. Christian hypocracy tends to be the sin that
concerns me most; with the promulgation of superstitious literalism in the
place of spiritual truths running a close second.
Joe
zayton
> >
> Again, all true. Despite the law books, not all judges will come to
the
> same judgment all the time, that is understood, but that does NOT obviate
> the high respect in which a country's legislative law is held.
> I want to hold holy scripture in the same high regard as Christ did.
See
> below
The problem is, that in comparing it to a law book, you set yourself up to
make the same sort of errors in understanding attributed to the Saddusees
and Pharisees by the New Testament writers. Ponder what Paul sais about the
advantage of the new covenant over the old, at a time when the new covenant
still existed, basically, only in a spoken form: "Our competence is from
God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of
letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." 2
Corinthians 3:4b-6
Christ didn't read the Hebrew Scriptures literally, he listened to their
living sppirit; and if you want to hear his Spirit in the New, you must look
past its literal livel and hear it's spirit.
> --
> Pastor Frank
>
> 2Tm:3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable
> for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness:
> Jesus in Jn:5:39: Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have
> eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
You can't catch breath in a bottle; and you can't pin it down with paper and
ink; God's living Word dances behind the words of the writers.
Joe
Ron B.
>
> You can't catch breath in a bottle; and you can't pin it down with paper
> and ink; God's living Word dances behind the words of the writers.
>
> Joe
May I append this as a sig (with proper attribution of course)? I love it.
zayton
> "zayton" <zay...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:xPGWa.23134$5O3....@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com...
> > "Pastor Frank" <pfr...@christfirst.com> wrote in message
> > news:0IGWa.10484$AI2....@nntp-post.primus.ca...
> > >
> > > Let's see you deal with the problem of a belief system that allows
> > > everyone to interpret those virtues you list above in a self-serving
> > manner,
> > > and the Christian belief system in comparison, which requires we
follow
> > > Jesus Christ by asking: "What Would Jesus Do"?, and do it, whether we
> like
> > > to or not.
> >
> > Sorry, but this also gets interpreted in a self-serving manner.
> >
> Not likely.
It may not be likely; but frequently and tragically, it persists.
> For if you know Christ,
I do.
> you would know what He would do.
You may wonder what Christ would do; and intuit what he might do; only God
can truly know.
At
> least in that eventuality, we would know, that we are deliberately being
> obtuse and sinning.
When we presune to be able to live by knowledge rather than by faith; then
we are being obtuse and sinning. God has made us neither capable of nor
responsible for perfection.
Joe
zayton
"Ron B." <zyp...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:iC%Wa.52365$o%2.26021@sccrnsc02...
By all means. Thanks for making me look back at it. I ought to post when I'm
half-asleep more often!
Joe
Ron B.
zayton wrote:
Thank you.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iQEVAwUBPyyR20pQ41XL9/JxAQGedggAlPt7rMLqMPzvYIoFo6w0ovQD2iY1ctEJ
NB1KrOw31KRt0ekpL5I6EgfYeKjG2Esf4i2fNn0Nxkac3HgU48uv7j+UlgpjuYL5
fY18PexljpV17gRFrz4SGAlGDP+5JP1EIHZwLeMyuBtXlqLWlDhgKdoAldwPNQL7
G18o6sBrYoRyXCRyVMWRepFBdP1ntfAOBBsO2udJiXf2Ghz7Yk9rBrwrPN+vUs1c
IRhoxDqRpH7lN8wjtBvMhfk55+9y+6TxkH3pRQCjmYYHRG3X1OnLL3Sf09GSjHNR
CVR1/f5gvFMp+8UZLFwtlQ+X9vguje5bwz9a7lPZ8gFuWrucFf39zQ==
=yHo7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Thore Schmechtig
> Again, all true. Despite the law books, not all judges will come to the
> same judgment all the time, that is understood, but that does NOT obviate
> the high respect in which a country's legislative law is held.
> I want to hold holy scripture in the same high regard as Christ did.
Holding the bible in high regard is one (basically good) thing...
believing everything to be true to the letter, IMHO, is another thing.
One need not disrespect the scripture by interpreting it in a way that
fits into different times and situations.
Let me construct an example:
Say, Jesus taught something about transportation and vehicles. In the
biblical time transportation meant riding, or traveling by beast-drawn
vehicles, so naturally he would have talked about horses and the like.
To use your own question, "What would Jesus do" if he would teach us
today about transportation? Would he not talk about cars, trains,
aircrafts - because this _is_ the usual method of transportation today?
There are many other methods to still respect and follow the meaning of
the Word though the letter of the Word would not really fit the current
situation...
So, I still admit your approach using "What would Jesus do?" is a good
one... but it still can be risky if you try to follow the letter. No
offense meant.
This is the way I was taught to interpret the bible when I was young,
and I think it is a very good way. It keeps your eyes open for the
message of Christ, but still leaves the possibility to act in
accordance with the message in today's world.
--
Bye
Tocis (star...@carcosa.de)
Thore Schmechtig
> "Our competence is from
> God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of
> letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." 2
> Corinthians 3:4b-6
Gee, very good! I see I should re-read these parts of the bible more
carefully... ;)
--
Bye
Tocis (star...@carcosa.de)
Thore Schmechtig
> So what brings you here? I thought everyone in these groups was Christian
> or atheist.
Well, until about two months ago I considered myself a German
protestant, albeit not a very fervent one. Since I "turned Asatruar" I
naturally opened my eyes to the point of view of my fellow Asatruar and
found a terrible amount of prejudice and discrimination, much of it
from modern German christians. The most shocking example was a document
written by a Professor of religion who first "preached" tolerance for
other faiths, even polytheistic ones - what a surprise for a Roman
Catholic! - but then claiming "Of course this does not hold true for
the evil brown gods of the nazis"! Great - so Asatruar are either
demon-worshippers or Nazis?!
I was unwilling to believe that "this is all there is" now, and started
searching for more positive examples of Christianity. I may no longer
be Christian, but I'd like to remain on "good terms" with Christianity.
(Some Asatruar cannot forget the past when our ancestors were
christianized with fire and sword, but I guess that's of no use today.
We live in the present, not in the past)
Granted that I _did_ find examples of what I always thought Christians
should be like, right here in these groups. But unfortunately the
majority of people seem to think that Christianity is all about finding
the fitting bible quote for every situation, let alone the belief that
after being written down by humans, translated by humans, and two
millennia of being copied and edited by humans, the bible would still
contain nothing but His true word.
(Even if it still was like that, the bible - just as the Koran and, I
guess, most other holy scripture of any faith - can (dis-)prove
anything depending on what line you quote.)
> A word about Frank: he doesn't seem to be a bad guy, and I think he's
> doing what he honestly believes is right.
Don't we all do this everytime? ;) Honestly, who would do something
though he exactly knows it's _not_ the best thing to do?
> Bear in mind that his religion insists that you are going to hell and that
> he feels he has to do whatever is necessary to get you to change that.
Well, I don't mind attempts to "evangelize me back" (though anyone
trying this would have to overcome the awesome feeling of revelation I
experienced when I started reading the Poetic Edda, this would not be
easy), but I despise every kind of behavior that looks like there's a
basically smart person that, for whatever reason, decides _not_ to use
his/her intellect and do others all the thinking for him/her - be it
scripture or other people. That would end, someday, in what in German
is called "Kadavergehorsam", mindless obedience to whatever order. We
had our experiences with this kind of obedience, no one in the world
needs more of this! One current example of the evil that can grow out
of this behavior is the acts of terror of the fanatic Muslims... and I
bet Christian fanatics could act just as bloodthirsty if we let him, at
least some of them.
So if a Christian knocks on my door wanting to explain to me how I'll
be damned if I don't (again) believe in Jesus, fine with me (talking
about that, Jehova's Witnesses are overdue to visit me again! Gee, what
happened to them? ;) ) - but he won't get very far without first
earning my respect, and if what he says consists to 90+ % of
questionable bible quotes it would be a waste of time ;)
> Anyway, nice to see you here, and happy Freyfaxi (it *is* this weekend,
> isn't it? My knowledge of Asatru isn't that good, but I seem to remember
> it being around the beginning of August.)
Around the beginning of August, yes. Thank you :)
> Take Frank with understanding
> and a few grains of salt and you'll be fine.
I can try - that's all I can promise you ;)
Thank you for being one of the positive examples of Christianity - may
you always be blessed by the Divine whatever its true name!
--
Bye
Tocis (star...@carcosa.de)
Jessica L. Price
| Christ didn't read the Hebrew Scriptures literally, he listened to their
| living sppirit; and if you want to hear his Spirit in the New, you must
look
| past its literal livel and hear it's spirit.
(Since I'm in a bit of an impish mood this morning, and with full
knowledge that I may stir up a hornet's nest...)
One might question how closely he read the Hebrew Scriptures at all, since
he and his followers seemed to prefer to quote the Septuagint.
Regards,
Jessica
Jessica L. Price
| Greetings,
|
| > So what brings you here? I thought everyone in these groups was
Christian
| > or atheist.
|
| Well, until about two months ago I considered myself a German
| protestant, albeit not a very fervent one. Since I "turned Asatruar" I
| naturally opened my eyes to the point of view of my fellow Asatruar and
| found a terrible amount of prejudice and discrimination, much of it
| from modern German christians. The most shocking example was a document
| written by a Professor of religion who first "preached" tolerance for
| other faiths, even polytheistic ones - what a surprise for a Roman
| Catholic! - but then claiming "Of course this does not hold true for
| the evil brown gods of the nazis"! Great - so Asatruar are either
| demon-worshippers or Nazis?!
I admit that the Nazi use of Asatru made me a tad nervous about the
religion, but I've never met an Asatruar who held with that crap. It's a
shame that the stigma remains.
<snip>
| Granted that I _did_ find examples of what I always thought Christians
| should be like, right here in these groups. But unfortunately the
| majority of people seem to think that Christianity is all about finding
| the fitting bible quote for every situation, let alone the belief that
| after being written down by humans, translated by humans, and two
| millennia of being copied and edited by humans, the bible would still
| contain nothing but His true word.
You would not *believe* the answers I get when I tell people that their
translation is wrong.
My favorite one: I told a would-be evangelist that the verse he'd just
quoted me was completely off because it wasn't possible to construct that
sort of sentence in Hebrew. I even went upstairs, grabbed my Tanakh, and
showed him the passage, translating word-for-word.
He gave me a disdainful look and told me that "that Hebrew and Greek crap
is all a lie to mislead believers. The Bible was written in English."
How do you even argue with something like that?
| > A word about Frank: he doesn't seem to be a bad guy, and I think he's
| > doing what he honestly believes is right.
|
| Don't we all do this everytime? ;) Honestly, who would do something
| though he exactly knows it's _not_ the best thing to do?
Well, I can think of my own personal bad days where I *knew* that chewing
someone out wasn't the best thing to do and still did it because it felt
good. :-)
| > Bear in mind that his religion insists that you are going to hell and
that
| > he feels he has to do whatever is necessary to get you to change that.
|
| Well, I don't mind attempts to "evangelize me back" (though anyone
| trying this would have to overcome the awesome feeling of revelation I
| experienced when I started reading the Poetic Edda, this would not be
| easy), but I despise every kind of behavior that looks like there's a
| basically smart person that, for whatever reason, decides _not_ to use
| his/her intellect and do others all the thinking for him/her - be it
| scripture or other people.
Ah yes. I've often wondered at the distrust and disdain for education and
analytical thinking one sometimes encounters among fundamentalists. I
don't believe God has two eyebrows, a nose, ten fingers, etc, so I have
always understood "made in God's image" to mean that humans, like God,
possess intellect, imagination, creative potential, and the ability for
moral reasoning. So God blesses you with this marvelous instrument, the
brain, and you're not going to use it? Yep, I'm sure that's *exactly*
what he wants.
| That would end, someday, in what in German
| is called "Kadavergehorsam", mindless obedience to whatever order. We
| had our experiences with this kind of obedience, no one in the world
| needs more of this! One current example of the evil that can grow out
| of this behavior is the acts of terror of the fanatic Muslims... and I
| bet Christian fanatics could act just as bloodthirsty if we let him, at
| least some of them.
Well, I think the Inquistion, the Crusades, and the churches who supported
the Holocaust adequately answer that question. Islam has a fairly bloody
history, but when it comes to torture and killing, both from a quantity
and a quality standpoint, unfortunately, the Christians take the cake.
| So if a Christian knocks on my door wanting to explain to me how I'll
| be damned if I don't (again) believe in Jesus, fine with me (talking
| about that, Jehova's Witnesses are overdue to visit me again! Gee, what
| happened to them? ;) ) - but he won't get very far without first
| earning my respect, and if what he says consists to 90+ % of
| questionable bible quotes it would be a waste of time ;)
Ah. I debate them to keep in practice, but they haven't been around here
lately either. Their reactions when I explained to them the etymology of
the word "Jehovah" were always fun as well. I almost miss them. Now it's
the Mormons. Generally they get nervous and excuse themselves, then flee,
when I haul out the Hebrew or Greek, so I've stopped using that route
because it's too easy. I had an Arabic-speaking friend over the last
time, and she had just been to Barnes & Noble to pick up a lovely
illuminated Quran. We invited them in (these were Baptists going door to
door) so they couldn't run away so easily. She's Episcopalian, but she
knows quite a bit about Islam so she pretended to be Muslim. Much fun
ensued.
| > Anyway, nice to see you here, and happy Freyfaxi (it *is* this
weekend,
| > isn't it? My knowledge of Asatru isn't that good, but I seem to
remember
| > it being around the beginning of August.)
|
| Around the beginning of August, yes. Thank you :)
|
| > Take Frank with understanding
| > and a few grains of salt and you'll be fine.
|
| I can try - that's all I can promise you ;)
|
| Thank you for being one of the positive examples of Christianity - may
| you always be blessed by the Divine whatever its true name!
Thank you, and you as well -- but I'm not Christian!
Warm regards,
Jessica
Caiaphas
That was great. I noted it in my Bible for future usage. Thanks for the
thought.
Caiaphas
"zayton" <zay...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:mn%Wa.29406$f%2.1...@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
> news:%D_Wa.13427$on2....@nntp-post.primus.ca...
> > >
> > Again, all true. Despite the law books, not all judges will come to
> the
> > same judgment all the time, that is understood, but that does NOT obviate
> > the high respect in which a country's legislative law is held.
> > I want to hold holy scripture in the same high regard as Christ did.
> See
> > below
>
> The problem is, that in comparing it to a law book, you set yourself up to
> make the same sort of errors in understanding attributed to the Saddusees
> and Pharisees by the New Testament writers.
The analogy of the way the ancient Pharisees and the Sadducees interpreted
scripture is our modern-day Christians who insist that one interpretes the Bible
'literally'. Reminds me of evangelical fundamentalists.
> Ponder what Paul sais about the
> advantage of the new covenant over the old, at a time when the new covenant
> still existed, basically, only in a spoken form: "Our competence is from
> God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of
> letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." 2
> Corinthians 3:4b-6
>
> Christ didn't read the Hebrew Scriptures literally, he listened to their
> living sppirit; and if you want to hear his Spirit in the New, you must look
> past its literal livel and hear it's spirit.
Good analogy. Examples are useful to understanding.
Thore Schmechtig
> I admit that the Nazi use of Asatru made me a tad nervous about the
> religion, but I've never met an Asatruar who held with that crap. It's a
> shame that the stigma remains.
In fact hitler and the rest of those bastards leading the third reich
did not even use Asatru as such, but only some ideas and symbols -
those that fit into their plans of course. Just today I checked out
some websites with details on what runes and other symbols are
currently banned by the German law (show them in public and POOF you're
jailed ;) )... horrible to see that for example the algiz rune was
forbidden just because some debile nazi group used it as their
symbol... let alone the celtic cross! :(
But try telling that to the people today...
> You would not *believe* the answers I get when I tell people that their
> translation is wrong.
Well, after my collisions with John W and IKHDY I'm ready to believe
many things... :/
> [...] He gave me a disdainful look and told me that "that Hebrew and Greek crap
> is all a lie to mislead believers. The Bible was written in English."
> How do you even argue with something like that?
Amazing. AFAIK Einstein once said (free translation): "Two things
really are infinite - the universe and human stupidity. Okay, I admit
I'm not absolutely sure about the universe..." ;)
Oh well, let them believe and think whatever they want... to each his
own. When they start to _act_ due to such belief it's time to worry...
:(
> Ah yes. I've often wondered at the distrust and disdain for education and
> analytical thinking one sometimes encounters among fundamentalists. [...]
> So God blesses you with this marvelous instrument, the
> brain, and you're not going to use it? Yep, I'm sure that's *exactly*
> what he wants.
In fact I think that's not much of a wonder. We all (at least the
Western cultures as far as I know) are tumbling down the pit to
blissful ignorance. Life gets easier every day if you just buy the
right brand-new goodies, and that's what we all want, don't we - having
an easy life... but for what price?
If we are not in control of our lifes, someone else is. Do we really
want this?
The fundamentalists obviously want it. If their faith could be proven
to be the only true faith then this would be OK... big "if".
I cannot prove that Asatru is the One True Faith either, and I don't
want to prove it. It's the faith that intuitively feels right for me,
and as long as I tolerate others, where's the problem? ;)
> Islam has a fairly bloody
> history, but when it comes to torture and killing, both from a quantity
> and a quality standpoint, unfortunately, the Christians take the cake.
Unfortunately true. Some people I asked about that replied that well,
this is history, it has been most unfortunate but it's the past, we
live in the present now. Until now I never met a purebred
fundamentalist who told me this... I'd like to ask him "OK, the bible
is history too - so where's the difference?" ;)
> [JW]
> Ah. I debate them to keep in practice, but they haven't been around here
> lately either. Their reactions when I explained to them the etymology of
> the word "Jehovah" were always fun as well. I almost miss them.
When they visit me next time I intend to ask them some uncomfortable
questions myself ;)
> Now it's
> the Mormons. Generally they get nervous and excuse themselves, then flee,
> when I haul out the Hebrew or Greek, so I've stopped using that route
> because it's too easy.
:)
Looks like there are almost no Mormons here in Germany, at least not in
Nethersaxony where I live. Many years ago some Mormons tried to convert
me on the street, and they were willing to accept my statement "If I
want to know more about your way, I'll contact you", so there was no
problem with them ;)
> | Thank you for being one of the positive examples of Christianity - may
> | you always be blessed by the Divine whatever its true name!
> Thank you, and you as well -- but I'm not Christian!
Gee, and _you_ wrote about only christians and atheists being present
here? ;) If you don't mind the question, what's your faith? You
mentioned your skills in Hebrew several times... Jew? :)
--
Bye
Tocis (star...@carcosa.de)
zayton
"Jessica L. Price" <jessic...@wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:bgjceu$oh3$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
>
>
> You would not *believe* the answers I get when I tell people that their
> translation is wrong.
>
> My favorite one: I told a would-be evangelist that the verse he'd just
> quoted me was completely off because it wasn't possible to construct that
> sort of sentence in Hebrew. I even went upstairs, grabbed my Tanakh, and
> showed him the passage, translating word-for-word.
>
> He gave me a disdainful look and told me that "that Hebrew and Greek crap
> is all a lie to mislead believers. The Bible was written in English."
>
> How do you even argue with something like that?
I suspect that arguing is not a real choice. Your options probably boil down
to laughing or crying, and, personally, I'd try to get the evangelist out of
the house before picking one.
Joe
Jessica L. Price
| In fact hitler and the rest of those bastards leading the third reich
| did not even use Asatru as such, but only some ideas and symbols -
| those that fit into their plans of course. Just today I checked out
| some websites with details on what runes and other symbols are
| currently banned by the German law (show them in public and POOF you're
| jailed ;) )... horrible to see that for example the algiz rune was
| forbidden just because some debile nazi group used it as their
| symbol... let alone the celtic cross! :(
| But try telling that to the people today...
Of course. Same way they used Wagner. (Although, Wagner, the old
bastard, might have approved. Love the music, can't stand the creator.)
I'm amazed that some of the runes are banned. Here in the U.S., runes are
big as part of the whole new age thing, and they're used quite casually.
You would think with its history, Germany would have eschewed banning
religious elements by now.
Are you a native German? If English isn't your native language, it's more
or less undetectable. (On the other hand, considering the way some native
English speakers write, that may not be much of a complement. :-)
| > You would not *believe* the answers I get when I tell people that
their
| > translation is wrong.
|
| Well, after my collisions with John W and IKHDY I'm ready to believe
| many things... :/
Oh boy. I've never had an encounter with IKHDY, but I often feel sorry
for John W. He seems somehow compelled to get people to attack him, and
then seems genuinely upset by it. Poor guy, I think he needs help.
| Oh well, let them believe and think whatever they want... to each his
| own. When they start to _act_ due to such belief it's time to worry...
Amen to that. If the Christian Coalition gains a hair more political
power here, I'm moving to Canada. I've noticed a distinct drop in
religious tolerance in the past couple years. I thought we were past the
sort of thing I've been seeing lately, but apparently not.
| In fact I think that's not much of a wonder. We all (at least the
| Western cultures as far as I know) are tumbling down the pit to
| blissful ignorance. Life gets easier every day if you just buy the
| right brand-new goodies, and that's what we all want, don't we - having
| an easy life... but for what price?
Which is a pity, as we now have easy access to the wisdom of a myriad of
different cultures that our grandparents only knew the names of, if that.
I dearly love the fact that I can head to a Barnes & Noble, or the
Internet, and spend all day learning about Zen Buddhism. The entire Nag
Hammadi library is online. It could be paradise. But even when people
*learn* it, they usually don't seem to learn *from* it.
| If we are not in control of our lifes, someone else is. Do we really
| want this?
| The fundamentalists obviously want it. If their faith could be proven
| to be the only true faith then this would be OK... big "if".
<sigh> If any faith is going to be proven to be the only true faith, I
dearly hope it is not fundamentalism. But I have a hard time accepting
the idea of a God that would create infinite variations in human
psychology and personality, then insist that they all relate to him in
*exactly the same way,* a way that is exclusive, narrow-minded, and has
little use for the profound gift of human analytical reasoning.
| I cannot prove that Asatru is the One True Faith either, and I don't
| want to prove it. It's the faith that intuitively feels right for me,
| and as long as I tolerate others, where's the problem? ;)
As long as you're not vivisecting infants or committing genocide, do what
you like. If it makes you happy and spiritually fulfilled, I have a hard
time seeing it as wrong.
| Unfortunately true. Some people I asked about that replied that well,
| this is history, it has been most unfortunate but it's the past, we
| live in the present now. Until now I never met a purebred
| fundamentalist who told me this... I'd like to ask him "OK, the bible
| is history too - so where's the difference?" ;)
Well, the Bible is *historicized* at least.
But the history of one's religion is part of the tradition, and one has to
face both the positive and negative actions done in the name of that
tradition. History may be painful at times, but sometimes you grow more
from the painful experiences than the comfortable ones. Lately a lot of
Christian institutions have been openly admitting Christian guilt in those
events, which I think is a good start to makng sure they don't happen
again.
And denial and secrecy about wrongdoing limits growth. A secret is a
terribly heavy thing to have to drag around while advertising the freedom
one's faith brings. Christianity has a lot to offer those for whom it
fills a void, and I would like to see it be able to do without the burden
of denied guilt. The anger of those you've wronged is another very heavy
burden, and in order to seek their forgiveness, it is also necessary for
Christian institutions to admit when they've screwed up, whether
historically or currently. Maybe then various faiths who are all
interested in healing the world we share can work together more easily.
| > | Thank you for being one of the positive examples of Christianity -
may
| > | you always be blessed by the Divine whatever its true name!
| > Thank you, and you as well -- but I'm not Christian!
|
| Gee, and _you_ wrote about only christians and atheists being present
| here? ;)
Well, it usually feels that way. It's wonderful to see a little more
religious diversity around here. Especially as Asatru represents some
pretty *diverse* diversity. If we were going to get a pagan, I would have
expected a teenage Wiccan, not a representative of an authentic tradition
that doesn't adapt itself quite so well to New-Age self-gratification.
Mind you, I'm not saying this about all Wiccans, just the ones that write
their love spells in glitter. We've got a little teenage coven in the
area. Membership changes very fast, since its members don't display
religious conviction so much as a desire to keep up with the latest trend
at the high school. Today Wiccan, tomorrow Buddhist...
I certainly wouldn't want to suggest that there aren't positive
representatives of Christianity around here, but since there are, I
wouldn't want to misrepresent myself. I'll let them take care of bearing
the "Nice Christian" banner.
| If you don't mind the question, what's your faith? You
| mentioned your skills in Hebrew several times... Jew? :)
Or a linguist. Or an atheist. Or an agnostic. ;-)
Considering the personal attacks that fly fast and furious around here,
I've made it a policy to keep my personal religious beliefs out of the
forum. I enjoy discussing the Bible, I enjoy debating it, both as
literature and as a component of belief systems. But I enjoy doing so
calmly and rationally, and I'm not sure that I could remain so in the face
of a personal attack upon my beliefs.
So for that reason, since it is a public forum, I try to avoid bringing in
my religious convictions even with people I like and trust. My personal
relationship to God -- or lack of one -- is just that: personal.
So, I'm sorry to be reticent, but I'm going to take the fifth on that one.
Let's just say I have more than a passing acquaintance with Jewish
beliefs, and for this some people around here occasionally ask me for a
"Jewish perspective."
But I am delighted to make your acquaintance, and look forward to the
fresh religious perspective you bring.
Warm regards,
Jessica
zayton
You think _that's_ hornet nest stirring material?
Since the title "Rabbi" is probably applied to Jesus in an informal or
honorary sense, (He teaches pretty good for a construction worker) There is
no reason to assume that he was more than minimally literate in Hebrew. He
would have spoken Aramaic, probably had some fluency both in reading and
writing Greek, he may have memorized some passages in Hebrew; but there is
really no evidence that he could read or write it at all.
By the way, my terminology may have been misleading; I tend to use the term
"Hebrew Scriptures" in the sense of the writings of the Hebrew people;
whether in the original language or in the version sometimes oddly
translated into Greek, which was the one familiar to the New Testament
writers.
Joe
Jessica L. Price
|
| "Jessica L. Price" <jessic...@wisc.edu> wrote in message
| news:bgjceu$oh3$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
| > He gave me a disdainful look and told me that "that Hebrew and Greek
crap
| > is all a lie to mislead believers. The Bible was written in English."
| >
| > How do you even argue with something like that?
|
| I suspect that arguing is not a real choice. Your options probably boil
down
| to laughing or crying, and, personally, I'd try to get the evangelist
out of
| the house before picking one.
Ah, but I seem to be a walking target for evangelists. You either hide,
take it more than a few grains of salt, or learn to enjoy it. I like a
good debate, so I generally let the evangelists have their say, as long as
they're not too kooky (you can't always tell initially, unfortunately).
I've only had one experience where the guy actually got scary. Generally
they leave on their own.
And I don't want to kick someone out just because I find some aspect of
his beliefs illogical. I respect people with enough sincere conviction to
go door-to-door, risking rejection, humiliation, and downright animosity
for the sake of their beliefs. Just because my own belief eschews
evangelism is no reason not to show respect and hospitality to those who
devoutly believe that their beliefs are a gift in which I should share. I
think Christianity is a lovely tradition, even if it doesn't speak to me
personally, and I remain interested in understanding it, both for the
wisdom it offers and in order to understand its adherents.
And after they've said what they came to say, cordially engaging them in
defending their beliefs is a way to learn what they didn't tell me, gauge
their actual sincerity, and keep in practice.
I've even had a few look troubled, and admit that they would have to
research and think about what I said. I have a few qualms about the
morality of that -- when someone's faith is working for them, I'm not sure
if I should disturb it even if I know that some of its assumptions can be
proven false. But on the other hand, I guess if they come to me to try to
challenge my beliefs, they have to accept the risk that I might challenge
theirs.
But it's still good advice. I noticed in another post that you mentioned
you're a Methodist pastor. After observing the easygoing good humor most
of your posts have displayed, I suspected you might be Methodist. They're
the only Christian denomination with which I have had universally positive
interactions, so I'm delighted to see you around here. I've had a few
lovely discussions about the Bible here, but many of the newsgroup
denizens seem more interested in shouting than discussing. The presence
of people like yourself makes it more likely that it will be a forum for
learning and not just preaching.
Warm regards,
Jessica
Jessica L. Price
| You think _that's_ hornet nest stirring material?
Around here? Yes, actually, I do. I've been flamed for less. Among
scholars, obviously not. But here on alt.bible...
| Since the title "Rabbi" is probably applied to Jesus in an informal or
| honorary sense, (He teaches pretty good for a construction worker) There
is
| no reason to assume that he was more than minimally literate in Hebrew.
He
| would have spoken Aramaic, probably had some fluency both in reading and
| writing Greek, he may have memorized some passages in Hebrew; but there
is
| really no evidence that he could read or write it at all.
Considering the constant attribution of Pharisee maxims to Christ, I think
a plausible argument could be made that he was a Pharisee, or at least
trained as one. Paul and the gospel writers were primarily writing for a
Hellenistic audience, so it's possible that they replaced quotes from the
Hebrew scriptures with the Septuagint versions so that their
Greek-speaking audience would be more likely to recognize them.
| By the way, my terminology may have been misleading; I tend to use the
term
| "Hebrew Scriptures" in the sense of the writings of the Hebrew people;
| whether in the original language or in the version sometimes oddly
| translated into Greek, which was the one familiar to the New Testament
| writers.
Ah. I'm accustomed to people getting confused when I refer to what they
call the "Old Testament" as the Hebrew Bible, even if I'm referring to an
English translation. (Many don't seem to be familiar with the term
"Tanakh.") So, I likewise tend to assume that when a Christian (unless he
knows he's writing for a mixed Jewish and Christian audience) uses the
term Hebrew Scriptures, he literally means scriptures in the Hebrew
language, not scriptures by the Hebrew people.
Warm regards,
Jessica
Pastor Frank
news:Pine.BSF.4.31.0308021853080.28252-100000@localhost...
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Pastor Frank wrote:
>
> > That sounds like you're in favour of handing our condoms in schools
> > instead of preaching abstinence. LOL
>
> out condoms in schools.
>
> > Do you realize you are posting this to religious NGs?
>
> "religious" NGs.
>
> > You are not one of those pesky atheists are you, who advises, that
> > since we are all sinners and liars, we might as well make sinning fun
> > and lie about it blatantly.
>
> motto is: An once of prevention is not as good as a ton of self-inflicted
> punishment.
>
Abstinence till marriage = "self-inflicted punishment"? LOL Christ came
to free us from our addictions and compulsions. Hallelujah, praise His
name!!!!!!
Now surprise the heck out of us and say something positive about
anything or anyone for once!!
--
Pastor Frank
2Tm:3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable
for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Jesus in Jn:5:39: Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have
eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
---
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.505 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/31/03
zayton
>
> "zayton" <zay...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:BReXa.1004$7h....@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
>
> call the "Old Testament" as the Hebrew Bible, even if I'm referring to an
> English translation. (Many don't seem to be familiar with the term
> "Tanakh.") So, I likewise tend to assume that when a Christian (unless he
> knows he's writing for a mixed Jewish and Christian audience) uses the
> term Hebrew Scriptures, he literally means scriptures in the Hebrew
> language, not scriptures by the Hebrew people.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Jessica
>
>
other traditions; but I'm afraid that the awareness that there are a few
narrow-minded Christians who get upset about it also has something to do
with it,
Joe
zayton
>
>
> But it's still good advice. I noticed in another post that you mentioned
> you're a Methodist pastor. After observing the easygoing good humor most
> of your posts have displayed, I suspected you might be Methodist. They're
> the only Christian denomination with which I have had universally positive
> interactions, so I'm delighted to see you around here. I've had a few
> lovely discussions about the Bible here, but many of the newsgroup
> denizens seem more interested in shouting than discussing. The presence
> of people like yourself makes it more likely that it will be a forum for
> learning and not just preaching.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Jessica
>
>
>
Hey, cut that out now, you'll have me trying to act responsible!
Joe
Jessica L. Price
| I suppose that I could claim that I do it out of respect for posters of
| other traditions; but I'm afraid that the awareness that there are a few
| narrow-minded Christians who get upset about it also has something to do
| with it,
LOL. Oh, see now I like you even more.
I know that in those type of situations, the very fact that I know more
implies an obligation to put my knowledge to nobler uses, but the
exquisite pleasure I get out of twitting the narrow-minded leads me off
the straight and narrow every time.
I know that one shouldn't offer criticism when one knows in advance that
it will not be heeded, but I'm afraid it's an injunction which I'm not too
good at following.
Warm regards,
Jessica
Pastor Frank
>
> Granted that I _did_ find examples of what I always thought Christians
> should be like, right here in these groups. But unfortunately the
> majority of people seem to think that Christianity is all about finding
> the fitting bible quote for every situation, let alone the belief that
> after being written down by humans, translated by humans, and two
> millennia of being copied and edited by humans, the bible would still
> contain nothing but His true word.
>
accurate, than the Bible? You are dealing with ancient philosophical
documents which present the challenge to interpret them as the author
intended. Also, accuracy is only necessary in matters of religious ceremony,
but Christianity is not so much "religion" as a quality of relationship with
God. One cannot codify "relationship".
To find out what that word "God" means, is the major challenge. Christ
gives us a clue in saying "God is One". That alone may require a couple of
years of thinking and testing of hyothesis.
>
> Well, I don't mind attempts to "evangelize me back" (though anyone
> trying this would have to overcome the awesome feeling of revelation I
> experienced when I started reading the Poetic Edda, this would not be
> easy), but I despise every kind of behavior that looks like there's a
> basically smart person that, for whatever reason, decides _not_ to use
> his/her intellect and do others all the thinking for him/her - be it
> scripture or other people.
I had that feeling reading Zen and the Art of Archery, the Dhamma Pada,
the Bhagad Gita and again when reading Meister Eckhart, St John of the Cross
and Angelus Silesius, and finally once more when, after all that, I read the
NT of the Bible again. This time, for the first time ever, I understood what
Christ was saying.
That would end, someday, in what in German
> is called "Kadavergehorsam", mindless obedience to whatever order. We
> had our experiences with this kind of obedience, no one in the world
> needs more of this! One current example of the evil that can grow out
> of this behavior is the acts of terror of the fanatic Muslims... and I
> bet Christian fanatics could act just as bloodthirsty if we let him, at
> least some of them.
>
LOL "Fanatism" is common to people who are being colonised and oppressed
by their ancient and most fearsome and cruel enemies, such as their Semitic
cousins the Jews who over 3000 years ago, killed ALL of the inhabitants and
their animals in the land they wanted to possess (excepting of little girls
who "never having known a man" and who were kept alive for the pleasure of
the Jews), and who are now back to claim the land yet again.
>
> So if a Christian knocks on my door wanting to explain to me how I'll
> be damned if I don't (again) believe in Jesus, fine with me (talking
> about that, Jehova's Witnesses are overdue to visit me again! Gee, what
> happened to them? ;) ) - but he won't get very far without first
> earning my respect, and if what he says consists to 90+ % of
> questionable bible quotes it would be a waste of time ;)
>
The Bible is as important a reference as a dictionary / encyclopedia to
academics, or as is a lawbook to a judge. You wouldn't want judges to base
their judgments merely on their personal and prvate opinions, if not also
their mood at the time, would you?
You need to guard yourself against negativity, i.e. complaints, meaning
having most of your post dealing with shortcomings of some sort. Try have
most of your post deal with the exciting discoveries you make on your
spiritual journey, and DO use us to test your alternative definitions and
hypothesis for veracity. That's what we are here for.
Disregard atheists trashing your beliefs and flaming your person. Plain
logic will tell you, that the closer you come to the truth, the more
virulent Satan's sentries will become against you.
--
Pastor Frank
Jesus in Lk:4:18: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath
anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the
broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of
sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised
Thore Schmechtig
> I'm amazed that some of the runes are banned. Here in the U.S., runes are
> big as part of the whole new age thing, and they're used quite casually.
> You would think with its history, Germany would have eschewed banning
> religious elements by now.
Oh well, with at least one rune I can understand. Sowulo is just
_bound_ to remind people of the SS, just as the fact that the swastika,
before the rise of hitler's madness, was an ancient symbol of the sun
also won't keep people from associating it with the nazis.
In fact, German law does not ban runes and the like as _religios_
symbols, but bans those symbols that in the recent past have been used
as open signs of membership in nazi groups. And symbols that currently
are being used as _secret signs_ are viewed with much suspicion by the
officials.
Fortunately the Mjollnir does not (yet?!) claim membership in either of
these symbol groups.
And as you perhaps know, there is a kind of a proverb here among the
youth roughly saying "Nazism is OK everywhere except in Germany".
There's much sarcasm in it, but the fact remains that one gets the
impression that the only country that mercilessly bans everything that
even hints at a possible rise of neonazi tendencies is Germany. German
neonazis wanting to put up websites spreading the bullsh*t around the
world, for example, have for years been able to avoid persecution by
simply setting up their pages on servers in other countries. In the
last years there has been growing cooperation between ISPs to close
such pages by force, but the fact remains.
> Are you a native German? If English isn't your native language, it's more
> or less undetectable. (On the other hand, considering the way some native
> English speakers write, that may not be much of a complement. :-)
Thank you very much! Yes, I'm a native German, from the cool rainy
north of the country ;)
(Well, currently it's neither cool nor rainy. Temperature, at 10 am, is
around 25 °C, and the last significant rainfall was at least two weeks
ago ;) )
Funny thing... at school my command of the English language was mostly
average. Of course, if one keeps emailing around the world for many
years as well as reading English novels and RPG rulebooks it should
have a positive influence on his skill ;)
> Oh boy. I've never had an encounter with IKHDY, but I often feel sorry
> for John W. He seems somehow compelled to get people to attack him, and
> then seems genuinely upset by it. Poor guy, I think he needs help.
May well be. After he admitted to someone else here that he allegedly
suffers from a kind of mental disorder I did not read anything
interesting anymore from him, so I cannot tell. What he did post here
until then (since I joined this group) was more than sick. "Spend money
for the military of Israel so the holy land can be freed from the
muslims!" - yeah I'm sure that will get the world very far. Towards WW
III at least.
> If the Christian Coalition gains a hair more political
> power here, I'm moving to Canada. I've noticed a distinct drop in
> religious tolerance in the past couple years. I thought we were past the
> sort of thing I've been seeing lately, but apparently not.
Yep, seems that the "freedom of religion" guaranteed in the US
constitution, in the recent years, more and more is seen as having the
secret ending "...of any _christian_ splinter faith". News keep
reaching the German asatruar about, for example, heathen children in
the US being persecuted and humiliated at school. Freedom of religion
indeed. :(
Reminds me of "Bowling for Columbine". Ever watched that great movie?
Very sarcastic, but I fear very close to the truth...
> | ...that's what we all want, don't we - having
> | an easy life... but for what price?
> Which is a pity, as we now have easy access to the wisdom of a myriad of
> different cultures that our grandparents only knew the names of, if that...
> It could be paradise. But even when people
> *learn* it, they usually don't seem to learn *from* it.
Yeah... learning is very interesting of course, but all that work...
opening the books and reading them (or firing up the browser and
entering the correct URL), let alone the mammoth task of _thinking_
about the things one has just read! (Oh boy do I _love_ cynism!)
> <sigh> If any faith is going to be proven to be the only true faith, I
> dearly hope it is not fundamentalism.
So do I. Of course, _if_ that comes out as the One True Faith we all
would have no choice. Fortunately I don't see proof for _any_ faith
appearing at the horizon. It remains a personal question.
> As long as you're not vivisecting infants or committing genocide, do what
> you like. If it makes you happy and spiritually fulfilled, I have a hard
> time seeing it as wrong.
Indeed. Interesting that this point of view can also be backed up by a
bible quote (read a bit last evening and found it ;) )! Which shows
again that scripture can prove or disprove everything ;)
> Lately a lot of
> Christian institutions have been openly admitting Christian guilt in those
> events, which I think is a good start to makng sure they don't happen
> again.
Yes, christianity slowly, very very slowly, starts adapting to the
known facts. Unfortunately it's much too slow.
> It's wonderful to see a little more
> religious diversity around here. Especially as Asatru represents some
> pretty *diverse* diversity.
I'm not sure if I, as a pretty "young" asatruar, am a good
representative, but I'll try ;)
> Mind you, I'm not saying this about all Wiccans, just the ones that write
> their love spells in glitter.
;)
Now that's at least one thing that can (partially) be prove that TV
shows do influence their viewers. Let's guess what would have happened
with these teenies without Buffy, Angel and Charmed? ;)
> Considering the personal attacks that fly fast and furious around here,
> I've made it a policy to keep my personal religious beliefs out of the
> forum.
Wise choice I admit :) In such a place, confess your faith and be ready
to counter the attacks on your faith...
> But I am delighted to make your acquaintance, and look forward to the
> fresh religious perspective you bring.
So am I! :)
--
Bye
Tocis (star...@carcosa.de)
Thore Schmechtig
> accurate, than the Bible?
I don't think that.
Especially not when the Edda is concerned. Christians did their very
best to obliterate every trace of it, and they often succeeded. What we
have today is a reconstruction, and no one can be sure about what's
missing.
And it doesn't matter.
The Aesir Gods do not demand any kind of absolute obedience, neither do
they threaten us with hell or something alike if we don't keep our
faith. The Edda does contain some strong advice on how to behave among
our fellow humans, but no divine punishment will rain down on us if we
don't heed that advice - our fellow humans will punish us if we
transgress too severely.
(Unless we directly offend the Gods on a personal basis, of course -
and even then we might be lucky and get away with it because the Gods
currently have other things on their minds. The Edda contains a story
about a ferryman denying mighty Thor his services. He lived to tell,
because Thor was not in a mood to fight him!)
> Also, accuracy is only necessary in matters of religious ceremony,
> but Christianity is not so much "religion" as a quality of relationship with
> God.
Then why is the bible as scripture so terribly important to you? You
contradict yourself...
> LOL "Fanatism" is common to people who are being colonised and oppressed
> by their ancient and most fearsome and cruel enemies...
Yes, that's a valid motivation for the Palestinians today. I dare
asking you: Do you see any valid reason for the christians of the past
to commit multiple genocide against non-believers, no matter how kind
they were? One can hardly claim that the ancient Asatruar, the Celts,
the Maya and Aztec people, the ..., the ... all had oppressed the
christians, can one?
> The Bible is as important a reference as a dictionary / encyclopedia to
> academics, or as is a lawbook to a judge. You wouldn't want judges to base
> their judgments merely on their personal and prvate opinions, if not also
> their mood at the time, would you?
As I wrote before, laws can be (and are) changed to fit the world
around them. Laws that are "up to date" with the current world can be
followed closely without too much difficulty. The bible, as it exists
now, is many many centuries old.
Using it as a generic reference is okay, following every verse by the
letter is not.
> You need to guard yourself against negativity, i.e. complaints, meaning
> having most of your post dealing with shortcomings of some sort. [...]
Until now I have not seen that much reason to post positive things
here, and as I'm well aware that these are christian groups, I also
should think before posting because some could take offense if I write
about my positive impressions as Asatruar here.
On the other hand, the fanatic trash I keep finding here is simply
_dangerous,_ no matter what faith is the foundation for the fanaticism.
I would attack any fanatic Muslim, Asatruar or any other person just
the same. Just in case you got me wrong, I don't hate christians. I
hate fanaticism and any other behavior that leads people to willingly
quit using their brains. The human race has caused far too much
suffering by _not_ thinking before acting.
Pastor Frank
> On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Pastor Frank wrote:
>
> >> I take it that you have a problem with sexual hygiene. I suppose your
> >> motto is: An once of prevention is not as good as a ton of
self-inflicted
> >> punishment.
>
> > Abstinence till marriage = "self-inflicted punishment"?
>
> Marriage doesn't prevent STDs. The only way to completely avoid this
> problem is abstinence, & since I didn't rule that out as a deterrent, your
> characterization of what I said is inaccurate.
>
How does a couple practicing abstinence till marriage get STDs? Are you
advocating all sexual contact be through a layer of rubber only? You will
never convince people to practice that kind of precautionary hygiene with
anyone they love. They would rather abstain, or take the risk of dying doing
it.
Ask: What Would Jesus Do?
--
Pastor Frank
Phil:4:8: Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, honest and just,
and whatsoever things are pure, lovely, and of good report; if there be any
virtue, praise and thanksgiving, think on these things.
---
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.505 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 8/1/03
Pastor Frank
> > >
> > > Everyone does this anyway. They just don't admit it.
> > >
> > That sounds like you're in favour of handing our condoms in schools
> > instead of preaching abstinence. LOL
>
> quote, I'm pretty sure the subject wasn't teenage promiscuity.
>
I wasn't the one who erased the point I was answering.
> But since you bring it up, I'm favor of both.
Is that what Jesus would do?
Even though the best response
> we can expect from most teens to preaching abstinence is amusement, it
> remains appropriate for us to continue to do so. The condoms, on the other
> hand, may actually do some good.
>
> > Do you realize you are posting this to religious NGs? You are not
one
> of
> > those pesky atheists are you, who advises, that since we are all sinners
> and
> > liars, we might as well make sinning fun and lie about it blatantly.
>
> I'm a United Methodist pastor. Christian hypocracy tends to be the sin
that
> concerns me most;
1. Tell us what better place than a church can a "hypocrites" go to be
healed of his hypocricy?
2. Are you saying you would rather join atheists in lamenting the
shortcomings of man, rather than praise and glorify the perfections of
Christ? How do you expect to fill your church, pastor?
with the promulgation of superstitious literalism in the
> place of spiritual truths running a close second.
>
You won't sell any Chevs by lambasting Fords. Show your Biblical
interpretations are superior.
Pastor Frank
> >
> > Again, all true. Despite the law books, not all judges will come to
> the
> > same judgment all the time, that is understood, but that does NOT
obviate
> > the high respect in which a country's legislative law is held.
> > I want to hold holy scripture in the same high regard as Christ did.
> > See below
>
> The problem is, that in comparing it to a law book, you set yourself up to
> make the same sort of errors in understanding attributed to the Saddusees
the
> advantage of the new covenant over the old, at a time when the new
covenant
> still existed, basically, only in a spoken form: "Our competence is from
> God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of
> letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." 2
> Corinthians 3:4b-6
> living sppirit; and if you want to hear his Spirit in the New, you must
look
> past its literal livel and hear it's spirit.
>
we should be aware of both letter and spirit when reading scripture. What
makes you think that I am a literalist?
What I wrote above was in answer to one who considers scripture
erroneous and therefore of little import. Actually he was lambasting
scripture, the church and ministers (who sell snake-oil) to the applause of
atheists, agnostics and other various god-haters.
> >
> > 2Tm:3:16: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable
> > for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
> righteousness:
> > Jesus in Jn:5:39: Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have
> > eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
>
and
> ink; God's living Word dances behind the words of the writers.
>
to the glory of God.
Pastor Frank
news:kkcXa.166$U_6....@eagle.america.net...
> "Ron B." <zyp...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:iC%Wa.52365$o%2.26021@sccrnsc02...
> > zayton wrote:
> > >
> > > You can't catch breath in a bottle; and you can't pin it down with
paper
> > > and ink; God's living Word dances behind the words of the writers.
> >
it.
>
> That was great. I noted it in my Bible for future usage. Thanks for the
> thought.
>
instead of us patting each other on the back, for our own poetic cleverness.
Pastor Frank
> "Jessica L. Price" <jessic...@wisc.edu> wrote in message
> news:bgjcu9$oo0$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
> > "zayton" <zay...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:mn%Wa.29406$f%2.1...@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com...
> >
> > | Christ didn't read the Hebrew Scriptures literally, he listened to
their
> > | living sppirit; and if you want to hear his Spirit in the New, you
must
> > look
> > | past its literal livel and hear it's spirit.
> >
> > (Since I'm in a bit of an impish mood this morning, and with full
> > knowledge that I may stir up a hornet's nest...)
> >
> > One might question how closely he read the Hebrew Scriptures at all,
since
> > he and his followers seemed to prefer to quote the Septuagint.
>
> Since the title "Rabbi" is probably applied to Jesus in an informal or
> honorary sense, (He teaches pretty good for a construction worker) There
is
> no reason to assume that he was more than minimally literate in Hebrew.
He
> would have spoken Aramaic, probably had some fluency both in reading and
> writing Greek, he may have memorized some passages in Hebrew; but there is
> really no evidence that he could read or write it at all.
>
reading?
Pastor Frank
> "zayton" <zay...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:mn%Wa.29406$f%2.1...@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com...
> > "Pastor Frank" <pfr...@christfirst.com> wrote in message
> > news:%D_Wa.13427$on2....@nntp-post.primus.ca...
> > > >
> > > Again, all true. Despite the law books, not all judges will come
to
> > the
> > > same judgment all the time, that is understood, but that does NOT
obviate
> > > the high respect in which a country's legislative law is held.
> > > I want to hold holy scripture in the same high regard as Christ
did.
> > > See below
> >
> > The problem is, that in comparing it to a law book, you set yourself up
to
> > make the same sort of errors in understanding attributed to the
Saddusees
> > and Pharisees by the New Testament writers.
>
> The analogy of the way the ancient Pharisees and the Sadducees interpreted
> scripture is our modern-day Christians who insist that one interpretes the
Bible
> 'literally'. Reminds me of evangelical fundamentalists.
>
Fundamentalism am I permitted to interpret the Bible as the Holy Spirit
leads. All main-line churches demand, that I adopt the interpretation of
their approved Church Theologian or be expelled / excommunicated.
Naturally, Fundamentalist interpretation runs the gamut, the literalists
being the most noted because of their stridency.
Praise the Lord for diversity.
--
Pastor Frank
Phil:4:8: Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, honest and just,
and whatsoever things are pure, lovely, and of good report; if there be any
virtue, praise and thanksgiving, think on these things.
---
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.505 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 8/1/03
Pastor Frank
>Pastor Frank wrote:
> >
> > Again, all true. Despite the law books, not all judges will come to
the
> > same judgment all the time, that is understood, but that does NOT
obviate
> > the high respect in which a country's legislative law is held.
> > I want to hold holy scripture in the same high regard as Christ did.
>
> believing everything to be true to the letter, IMHO, is another thing.
> One need not disrespect the scripture by interpreting it in a way that
> fits into different times and situations.
> Let me construct an example:
> Say, Jesus taught something about transportation and vehicles. In the
> biblical time transportation meant riding, or traveling by beast-drawn
> vehicles, so naturally he would have talked about horses and the like.
> To use your own question, "What would Jesus do" if he would teach us
> today about transportation? Would he not talk about cars, trains,
> aircrafts - because this _is_ the usual method of transportation today?
> There are many other methods to still respect and follow the meaning of
> the Word though the letter of the Word would not really fit the current
> situation...
> So, I still admit your approach using "What would Jesus do?" is a good
> one... but it still can be risky if you try to follow the letter. No
> offense meant.
> This is the way I was taught to interpret the bible when I was young,
> and I think it is a very good way. It keeps your eyes open for the
> message of Christ, but still leaves the possibility to act in
> accordance with the message in today's world.
>
Perhaps one should add to "What Would Jesus Do" the words: -at this
moral juncture. You just don't bother asking Jesus technical questions
regarding transportation.The question: " What Would Jesus Do" is invaluable
in the face of strong temptation, or fear and worry.
Pastor Frank
instead of man's inhumanity to man, and much camaraderie etc. but little
advocacy of solutions to the horrendous problems facing the world, nor
praise and worship of ideals of character-perfection, as defined and
demonstrated by Jesus Christ.
While "Rome burns", are we going to keep belabouring the obvious or
advance the philosophy of life which motivates to self-less effort beyond
the pale, the one of Jesus Christ?
Caiaphas
> "Caiaphas" <Caiap...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:kkcXa.166$U_6....@eagle.america.net...
> > "Ron B." <zyp...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> > news:iC%Wa.52365$o%2.26021@sccrnsc02...
> > > zayton wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You can't catch breath in a bottle; and you can't pin it down with
> paper
> > > > and ink; God's living Word dances behind the words of the writers.
> > >
> > > May I append this as a sig (with proper attribution of course)? I love
> it.
> >
> > That was great. I noted it in my Bible for future usage. Thanks for the
> > thought.
> >
> Personally, I would rather see Jesus and HIS words being glorified,
> instead of us patting each other on the back, for our own poetic cleverness.
> --
> Pastor Frank
Its not a slight toward Christs teaching. Instead, it puts the Bible in its
proper perspective in that paper and ink cannot literally capture the absolutely
exact meaning. In other words, there is more meaning in Christs teachings than
mere paper and ink can capture.
Caiaphas
I would think that Christ was multi-lingual in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek --
unlike us Americans who can only master English. In addition, I would think
that Christ was more adept in Aramaic as it was the spoken language of His day,
and surely Christ was nearly as adept at Hebrew and He was able to read and
speak the Hebrew in the ancient Scriptures.
Caiaphas
Well, maybe we need to review the meaning of Evangelical Fundamentalist. I
associate Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as Evangelical Fundamentalist.
Jessica L. Price
| I have seen some condemnation of irrelevant differences of opinion,
| instead of man's inhumanity to man, and much camaraderie etc. but little
| advocacy of solutions to the horrendous problems facing the world, nor
| praise and worship of ideals of character-perfection, as defined and
| demonstrated by Jesus Christ.
| While "Rome burns", are we going to keep belabouring the obvious or
| advance the philosophy of life which motivates to self-less effort
beyond
| the pale, the one of Jesus Christ?
1) I'm not sure how this is a reply to my post.
2) This is alt.bible. I come here to discuss the Bible. When I want to
protest "man's inhumanity to man" I go to political rallies, not waste my
time preaching to the tiny audience on a newsgroup. I send money to
groups whose purpose is fighting inhumanity. I don't yell at people on
alt.bible. Good grief, it's not even a political newsgroup.
When I want to "advocate solutions to the horrendous problems facing the
world," I write to my representatives, send money to the ones doing a good
job, protest to the ones that aren't, and badger the politicians with whom
I work to be more active. I don't condemn the people here, people on
newsgroups, who probably can't do much anyway. (I haven't seen you
offering practical solutions, just condemnation.)
I don't worship "ideals of character-perfection." I worship Gd. I would
consider worshipping anything else to be idolatry.
This is alt.bible. I don't come here to advance a philosophy. I come
here to talk about the bible. I see nothing wrong with camaraderie in
doing so.
Regards,
Jessica
zayton
> "zayton" <zay...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:Z%_Wa.14745$rJ4....@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com...
> > "Pastor Frank" <pfr...@christfirst.com> wrote in message
> > news:PoYWa.13002$3k6....@nntp-post.primus.ca...
> > > "zayton" <zay...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > > news:rUGWa.12557$rJ4....@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com...
> > > >
> > > > Everyone does this anyway. They just don't admit it.
> > > >
> > > That sounds like you're in favour of handing our condoms in
schools
> > > instead of preaching abstinence. LOL
> >
> > Even though you've stripped away all points of reference for the line
you
> > quote, I'm pretty sure the subject wasn't teenage promiscuity.
> >
> I wasn't the one who erased the point I was answering.
If you werent, then who did? Your post began with my statement: "Everyone
does this anyway. They just don't adnit it." Are you suggesting that I
posted just this line? If you did not strip away the statement to which I
was responding, that would mean that I posted just the one line, with no
indication of what "this" was referring to. It would have been silly to do
that, since there would have been no clue as to what I was talking about. In
which case, it would have been even sillier for anyone to respond to it.
No, Pastor Frank; you snipped a line to which I was responding, and then
lied about iit.
>
> > But since you bring it up, I'm favor of both.
>
> Is that what Jesus would do?
He seemed to have some concern for people, so I think he would. I believe
that the attitude of, "if they fool around they deserve what they get" would
have horrified and offended him.
>
> Even though the best response
> > we can expect from most teens to preaching abstinence is amusement, it
> > remains appropriate for us to continue to do so. The condoms, on the
other
> > hand, may actually do some good.
> >
> > > Do you realize you are posting this to religious NGs? You are not
> one
> > of
> > > those pesky atheists are you, who advises, that since we are all
sinners
> > and
> > > liars, we might as well make sinning fun and lie about it blatantly.
> >
> > I'm a United Methodist pastor. Christian hypocracy tends to be the sin
> that
> > concerns me most;
>
> 1. Tell us what better place than a church can a "hypocrites" go to be
> healed of his hypocricy?
None that I can think of. Though if you go to Church, It doesn't seem to be
doing you any good as yet.
> 2. Are you saying you would rather join atheists in lamenting the
> shortcomings of man, rather than praise and glorify the perfections of
> Christ? How do you expect to fill your church, pastor?
You must be hearing voices in your head. I have said nothing even remotely
related to this.
>
> with the promulgation of superstitious literalism in the
> > place of spiritual truths running a close second.
> >
> You won't sell any Chevs by lambasting Fords. Show your Biblical
> interpretations are superior.
I'm discussing interpretation in other threads. There is really little point
in discussing that or anything with you. as I have pointed out above;
already, in this thread you have snipped the material I was responding to,
then given an unrelated response to my statement and lied about having done
so.
Then posted, as if they were responses to something I said, statements on
matters totally unrelated to anything either of us had mentioned previously.
Joe
Jessica L. Price
| I would think that Christ was multi-lingual in Aramaic, Hebrew, and
Greek --
| unlike us Americans who can only master English.
LOL. Reminds me of a joke I heard:
What do you call someone who speaks two languages?
Bilingual
What do you call someone who speaks three languages?
Trilingual
What do you call someone who speaks one language?
American
Although it's a little unfair, since almost everyone I know speaks at
*least* two languages. Snobby Europeans.
| In addition, I would think
| that Christ was more adept in Aramaic as it was the spoken language of
His day,
| and surely Christ was nearly as adept at Hebrew and He was able to read
and
| speak the Hebrew in the ancient Scriptures.
I think it's safe to assume that Aramaic was Christ's birth tongue. Luke
gives an account of the boy Jesus learning from and then amazing the
"teachers in the Temple courts" so it sounds like he studied with the
Pharisees, which is in line with his quoting Pharisee maxims. In that
case he would have learned at least some Hebrew. But, as his quotations
from Hebrew scripture are in Greek and match the ones in the Septuagint
more closely than the actual scripture, we can't be sure he spoke Hebrew.
The Pharisees -- and Jesus' audience in Judea -- would only have
considered the Hebrew scriptures, not the Septuagint, canon, so his use of
the Septuagint versions, if authentic and not the addition of the Gospel
writers or some later editor, would cast doubt on his command of the
Hebrew scriptures. But he spoke Aramaic, some Hebrew, and probably some
Greek, at least.
Regards,
Jessica
Caiaphas
>
> "Caiaphas" <Caiap...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:75wXa.243$U_6....@eagle.america.net...
>
> | I would think that Christ was multi-lingual in Aramaic, Hebrew, and
> Greek --
> | unlike us Americans who can only master English.
>
> LOL. Reminds me of a joke I heard:
>
> What do you call someone who speaks two languages?
> Bilingual
>
> What do you call someone who speaks three languages?
> Trilingual
>
> What do you call someone who speaks one language?
> American
>
> Although it's a little unfair, since almost everyone I know speaks at
> *least* two languages. Snobby Europeans.
European. I'm American and most everyone I know speaks only English and
sometimes even that with difficulty :-) Always wished I knew more than English
but never had any real need for any language other than English. Of course, in
recent years I've noticed more and more Hispanics and Spanish appears to be a
language that would be of practical importance to Americans.
>
> | In addition, I would think
> | that Christ was more adept in Aramaic as it was the spoken language of
> His day,
> | and surely Christ was nearly as adept at Hebrew and He was able to read
> and
> | speak the Hebrew in the ancient Scriptures.
>
> I think it's safe to assume that Aramaic was Christ's birth tongue. Luke
> gives an account of the boy Jesus learning from and then amazing the
> "teachers in the Temple courts" so it sounds like he studied with the
> Pharisees, which is in line with his quoting Pharisee maxims. In that
> case he would have learned at least some Hebrew. But, as his quotations
> from Hebrew scripture are in Greek and match the ones in the Septuagint
> more closely than the actual scripture, we can't be sure he spoke Hebrew.
> The Pharisees -- andospel
> writers or some later editor, would cast doubt on hi Jesus' audience in
Judea -- would only have
> considered the Hebrew scriptures, not the Septuagint, canon, so his use of
> the Septuagint versions, if authentic and not the addition of the Gs command
of the
> Hebrew scriptures. But he spoke Aramaic, some Hebrew, and probably some
> Greek, at least.
It would be nice to know the culture, events, and lifestyle from that era. I
read that the Septuagint dates from the 3rd century BC and is the Greek version
of the Hebrew Scriptures and other material. You mention that the Pharisees
used only the Hebrew Scriptures - where would the Greek Septuagint Scriptures be
found in that day and time?
>
> Regards,
>
> Jessica
>
>
John Vogel
>
> "Pastor Frank" <pfr...@christfirst.com> wrote in message
> news:pvvXa.3050$_o4....@nntp-post.primus.ca...
> > "zayton" <zay...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:Z%_Wa.14745$rJ4....@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com...
> > > "Pastor Frank" <pfr...@christfirst.com> wrote in message
> > > news:PoYWa.13002$3k6....@nntp-post.primus.ca...
> > > > "zayton" <zay...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:rUGWa.12557$rJ4....@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com...
[Let me reconstruct this part of the thread from what was snipped]
Pastor Frank Said:
Your cannot call the NT erroneous, that would open the door to private
interpretations by revisionists who would take it upon themselves to
"correct" the NT, until it becomes unrecognisable.
To which zayton replied:
Everyone does this anyway. They just don't admit it.
Pastor Frank Replied:
That sounds like you're in favour of handing our condoms in schools instead
of preaching abstinence. LOL
hmm
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Jessica L. Price
|
| "Jessica L. Price" <jessic...@wisc.edu> wrote in message
| news:bgm437$d11$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
| >
| > "Caiaphas" <Caiap...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:75wXa.243$U_6....@eagle.america.net...
| >
| > | I would think that Christ was multi-lingual in Aramaic, Hebrew, and
| > Greek --
| > | unlike us Americans who can only master English.
| >
| > LOL. Reminds me of a joke I heard:
| >
| > What do you call someone who speaks two languages?
| > Bilingual
| >
| > What do you call someone who speaks three languages?
| > Trilingual
| >
| > What do you call someone who speaks one language?
| > American
| >
| > Although it's a little unfair, since almost everyone I know speaks at
| > *least* two languages. Snobby Europeans.
|
| European. I'm American and most everyone I know speaks only English and
| sometimes even that with difficulty :-) Always wished I knew more than
English
| but never had any real need for any language other than English. Of
course, in
| recent years I've noticed more and more Hispanics and Spanish appears to
be a
| language that would be of practical importance to Americans.
Oh no. I'm American as well. I know a few people that only speak
English, but they're mainly older people who didn't go to college. I'm
surprised that you know so few multi-lingual people. In the various
places that I've worked and volunteered, I ran across so many people that
didn't speak English that I don't know how I would have handled it if I
didn't speak Spanish.
But I get crap all the time, because I'm only conversant in English,
Spanish and Italian. (I've studied other languages, but I wouldn't call
myself fluent in any of them.) My best friend makes fun of me for being
so heavy on the Romance languages (the others I've studied are French,
Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and a little Irish Gaelic and Welsh) because she
speaks Korean and Arabic. She keeps trying to convince me to learn
Arabic, since she claims my Hebrew will help, but I'm worried that it will
do the same thing to my Hebrew that learning Italian did to my Spanish --
last time I was in Spain, everyone kept asking me where in Italy I was
from, since I had an Italian accent! (It was bizarre, since I am *so*
American-looking.)
But in any case, I'm amazed that you only speak English. What do you do
when you travel? I mean, I know people who've gone to, say, France
without speaking French, but they always had someone along who did.
| It would be nice to know the culture, events, and lifestyle from that
era. I
| read that the Septuagint dates from the 3rd century BC and is the Greek
version
| of the Hebrew Scriptures and other material. You mention that the
Pharisees
| used only the Hebrew Scriptures - where would the Greek Septuagint
Scriptures be
| found in that day and time?
The diasporic Jews were scattered throughout the Hellenistic world. While
the Pharisees, centered in Jerusalem, considered only the Hebrew
Scriptures canon, it is unlikely that they were unfamiliar with the
Septuagint. As Greek was far more of a lingua franca than Aramaic, and we
have correspondence between diasporic and Jerusalem Jews in Greek, it is
likely that some of the Pharisees, at least, knew Greek. So it's probable
that there were some copies of the Septuagint in Jerusalem. From other
Jewish writings of the time, we know that Hebrew was not widely spoken or
even understood by all Jews, so use of a Greek translation by non-scholars
seems possible.
In addition, the Gospels were written after Paul, who was thoroughly
Hellenized, which may have affected how they chose their quotes. The
Gospels were written primarily for a Hellenistic, not a Jerusalem,
audience, so the writers may have chosen to quote the scripture with which
their audience was likely to be familiar, rather than the Hebrew version.
Warm regards,
Jessica
Caiaphas
Be interesting to know how much Paul knew about Christ and his teachings. What
I mean is if Paul had access to some manuscripts that we don't know about and/or
was it mostly via the oral tradition.
zayton
Frank, I just quoted Paul's warning that the letter kills, but the spirit
sets free. The only manner in which we should be aware of the letter of the
law when reading scripture is in the sense of avoiding being drawn to it,
and away from the spirit.
What
> makes you think that I am a literalist?
You compaired the reading of the scriptures to the reading of a law book.
> What I wrote above was in answer to one who considers scripture
> erroneous and therefore of little import.
Erronious and of little import are two different matters.
Actually he was lambasting
> scripture, the church and ministers (who sell snake-oil) to the applause
of
> atheists, agnostics and other various god-haters.
Ministers who sell snake oil should be lambasted.
OK, seriously, Your statements here are reasonable.
zayton
That's a much debated point. Jewish historians tend to uphold a fair degree
of Hebrew literacy. Christian historians tend to believe that only formally
trained Rabbis retained the ability to read and write Hebrew; that while
every religious community would have had some portion of Torah in Hebrew,
lessons were always read from the Septuagint. Actual evidence from the era
is scant and inconclusive. I remember reading about someone making a claim
in a book on the era, that Hebrew literacy within the era was entirely lost,
even by the Rabbis, except for a few key theological terms which most could
recognize, and had to be reintroduced from foreign teachers who had retained
the knowledge, but no serious scholar took that very seriously.
Joe
zayton
"John Vogel" <jvoge...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f2e9...@corp.newsgroups.com...
>
> "zayton" <zay...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:bjwXa.3422$Ee7....@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
> >
> > "Pastor Frank" <pfr...@christfirst.com> wrote in message
> > news:pvvXa.3050$_o4....@nntp-post.primus.ca...
> > > "zayton" <zay...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > > news:Z%_Wa.14745$rJ4....@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com...
> > > > "Pastor Frank" <pfr...@christfirst.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:PoYWa.13002$3k6....@nntp-post.primus.ca...
> > > > > "zayton" <zay...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:rUGWa.12557$rJ4....@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
> [Let me reconstruct this part of the thread from what was snipped]
>
> Pastor Frank Said:
> Your cannot call the NT erroneous, that would open the door to private
> interpretations by revisionists who would take it upon themselves to
> "correct" the NT, until it becomes unrecognisable.
>
> To which zayton replied:
> Everyone does this anyway. They just don't admit it.
>
> Pastor Frank Replied:
> That sounds like you're in favour of handing our condoms in schools
instead
> of preaching abstinence. LOL
>
> hmm
Thank you. I was too lazy to go to google and do the reconstruction,
especially since I'm beginning to suspect that "pastor Frank" never does
more that glance, at most, at what he is supposedly responding to before
dashing off his nest gem of wisdom.
All of which says something pretty dismal about my judgement, since I keep
responding to him!
Joe
Pastor Frank
> "Pastor Frank" <pfr...@christfirst.com> wrote in message
> news:QvvXa.3058$_o4...@nntp-post.primus.ca...
>
> | I have seen some condemnation of irrelevant differences of opinion,
> | instead of man's inhumanity to man, and much camaraderie etc. but little
> | advocacy of solutions to the horrendous problems facing the world, nor
> | praise and worship of ideals of character-perfection, as defined and
> | demonstrated by Jesus Christ.
> | While "Rome burns", are we going to keep belabouring the obvious or
> | advance the philosophy of life which motivates to self-less effort
> beyond
> | the pale, the one of Jesus Christ?
>
> 1) I'm not sure how this is a reply to my post.
> 2) This is alt.bible. I come here to discuss the Bible. When I want to
> protest "man's inhumanity to man" I go to political rallies, not waste my
> time preaching to the tiny audience on a newsgroup. I send money to
> groups whose purpose is fighting inhumanity. I don't yell at people on
> alt.bible. Good grief, it's not even a political newsgroup.
>
issue' which should only be discussed in political NGs? I post to the
Philosophical NGs, but pay scant attention to what other NGs it is
cross-posted to.
> When I want to "advocate solutions to the horrendous problems facing the
> world," I write to my representatives, send money to the ones doing a good
> job, protest to the ones that aren't, and badger the politicians with whom
> I work to be more active. I don't condemn the people here, people on
> newsgroups, who probably can't do much anyway. (I haven't seen you
> offering practical solutions, just condemnation.)
>
I am glad to hear that. My "condemnation" should be no greater, than
Christ's in Mt:11:17: "And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not
danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented."
I also have mourned unto you and no one has lamented.
> I don't worship "ideals of character-perfection." I worship Gd. I would
> consider worshipping anything else to be idolatry.
>
Tell us the many names of YHWH and see if there are any which do not
speak of His perfections, all of which we should aspire to.
--
Pastor Frank
Jesus in Lk:4:18: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath
anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the
broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of
sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised
---
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.505 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/30/03
Pastor Frank
appears to me he is looking to put people on his hate-parade, rather than
offering a superior insight into Biblical interpretation. I hope I am wrong.
Note how our fulminating atheists have stopped ankle-biting ever since
we debate with each other? I bet they are just waiting for us to explode
into recriminations, something they need to justify their atheism. Let's
disappoint them, shall we?
--
Pastor Frank
-----------------------
"John Vogel" <jvoge...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f2e9...@corp.newsgroups.com...
>
---
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.505 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/30/03