Originally Posted by HorrendousGames Actually the bible depicts his beard to be clean and braided, and he wore a shiny pink silk robe. OMG Haaaalaaay loo yaaaaaaaaaaaaah boys!
No where in the Bible does it mention Jesus wearing a pink robe, nor does it say it was silk (most likely it was not, Jesus wasn't rich in worldly wealth)
The Bible does say Jesus was clean shaven, or at least that he shaved.
If you would like to prove any of your false claims go ahead and give scripture references.
Sounds to me like you're just typing a bunch of nonsense.
Much like you enjoy DC mailing yourself.
I would highly scrutinize anything else you type, most of it is nonsense by the looks of it. Sounds like you enjoy using stereotypes as well since you used appearance to try and prove Jesus's intentions. Even though your claim was false, the "proof" you used makes it very clear that your opinion should be taken with grain.
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames I don't know what it's like in the UK, but most Christians seem to think that they don't have it easy because of their beliefs, even though their beliefs don't really cause any kind of hindrance...?
"most Christians" eh? Another stereotype. You obviously don't know many "Christians." (I put it in quotes because claiming Christianity doesn't mean a thing if they aren't living it)
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames That's because most American's aren't capable of critical thinking[...]
Not everyone is like you.
Originally Posted by Phredreeke Early christians did a way with most of the laws in the old testament to make the religion more attractive to non-jews
This isn't true. If you read the epistles you'll see why. (or Paul as EE said)
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] But it's true, Paul the Apostle(Saul of Tarsus) made some major(read crazy f00 straight contradictory) changes to Jesus teachings. Kinda stupid that the entirety of modern Christianity cherishes good ol' Saul to the extent that it does.
Can you please point out these "changes", or "contradictions." Sure some of the ceremonial laws held by the Jews were abolished when Jesus died on the cross, but nothing was changed by Paul by any stretch. In fact one of the big ones that was abolished by Jesus was the ability to come to God as in individual instead of having the priest pray for you. When Jesus died the curtain that separated the average person from the Holiest of Holies was rent, and that ended the necessity of ceremonial laws, and it also removed the necessity of performing certain acts to stay within the Jewish Covenant.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] It is only later, in postbiblical times, that many commentators and scribes make the two overlapping assumptions;
1.) The word "Torah" equates to the stretch of five documents that runs from Genesis to Deuteronomy.
2.) That Moses was the author of "Torah"(i.e the five books)
And the entire argument is based upon the first assumption, but let's make it clearer.
Even though the first 5 books of the Bible are referred to as the "Torah," the word "Torah" literally means "law." So before THE Torah was written the word "Torah" just meant "law."
So the whole argument falls apart once again. Good luck trying to glue it back together.
There are more reasons why that argument is incorrect, but I'll just wait for you to bring them up yourself as you always do.
Why won't anyone read the book of spirits and its related stuff? So much proof out there about life on the other side. Proof about Jesus and God. I’m Christian and after studying spiritism I can only confirm the Bible/Jesus is a true gift to mankind with its messages and teachings and people need to realize it was written according to its time and not take things literally.
Just go love each other or something. We all have much to learn!!
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames Actually the bible depicts his beard to be clean and braided, and he wore a shiny pink silk robe. OMG Haaaalaaay loo yaaaaaaaaaaaaah boys!
No where in the Bible does it mention Jesus wearing a pink robe, nor does it say it was silk (most likely it was not, Jesus wasn't rich in worldly wealth)
The Bible does say Jesus was clean shaven, or at least that he shaved.
If you would like to prove any of your false claims go ahead and give scripture references.
Sounds to me like you're just typing a bunch of nonsense.
Much like you enjoy DC mailing yourself.
I would highly scrutinize anything else you type, most of it is nonsense by the looks of it. Sounds like you enjoy using stereotypes as well since you used appearance to try and prove Jesus's intentions. Even though your claim was false, the "proof" you used makes it very clear that your opinion should be taken with grain.
LOL calm down dude, it was a joke. JOOOOKE! I thought it was pretty obvious that comment wasn't serious, sarcastic even. Lighten up, would you?
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames I don't know what it's like in the UK, but most Christians seem to think that they don't have it easy because of their beliefs, even though their beliefs don't really cause any kind of hindrance...?
"most Christians" eh? Another stereotype. You obviously don't know many "Christians." (I put it in quotes because claiming Christianity doesn't mean a thing if they aren't living it)
The bible states that Christians will be persecuted and had been at some point, though history shows that they've done more persecution than they have received. Sure there might be some occasions where someone is singled out, harmed or whatever just for being a Christian (as with all other groups), but it is just about non-existent in America, which ironically happens to have the most complaints. Take right now for instance, Chicago has now started allowing same sex marries, and it's freaking pandemonium. "The homosexuals are taking over Chicago" is something I've been hearing quite a bit lately, like those uppity queer folk are breaking into peoples houses with guns and stuff. Take yourself for instance. You're whining that I'm stereotyping your group, so what? This is why I hate "anti-defamation" groups, most of the time they worry about stupid pointless words. That's all they are is words, they should bother defending people from losing work, being denied housing, being hurt or being killed based on who they are as a person, or against people trying to enact legislature based on the same thing, which ironically again is carried out by Christians and other religious types more than any other group. I can see you getting upset if I said "All Christians", but I said "Most", indicating that if you weren't most Christians, that wouldn't apply to you. And what did I say, most Christians whine? GTFO man, I hardly said anything like most Christians are moronic animal rapists.
We've been over this. Most of the opinions of "Christian Americans" are actually only the views of a small minority with a large voice, however, they don't get anywhere by being a small majority, someone has to back them up to allow them a majority, which I don't care who you are but if you back someone up for being ignorant, that doesn't make you any different, regardless if you state otherwise. It bothers the heck out of me when someone says one thing then does another.
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames That's because most American's aren't capable of critical thinking[...]
Not everyone is like you.
You've never been to the city, have you? Better yet, just go out driving somewhere. 9 times out of 10 you'll run into a moron in this country, unless you are a moron, then everyone else looks smart.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames You've never been to the city, have you? Better yet, just go out driving somewhere. 9 times out of 10 you'll run into a moron in this country, unless you are a moron, then everyone else looks smart.
Ha ha! What are you talking about!
I live just outside of New Orleans, I go to the city almost everyday, and yes, I've met "Christians."
And I've met those who are sincere. The people who are sincere you won't notice as much as those who are just crazy.
Come on didn't you go to a church at one time?
Don't you know that there are people who just go to church to feel good about themselves, and then there are people who actually live the life.
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames You've never been to the city, have you? Better yet, just go out driving somewhere. 9 times out of 10 you'll run into a moron in this country, unless you are a moron, then everyone else looks smart.
Ha ha! What are you talking about!
I live just outside of New Orleans, I go to the city almost everyday, and yes, I've met "Christians."
And I've met those who are sincere. The people who are sincere you won't notice as much as those who are just crazy.
Come on didn't you go to a church at one time?
Don't you know that there are people who just go to church to feel good about themselves, and then there are people who actually live the life.
It's probably just a matter of perspective, but no Christian who would actually follow the teachings of Jesus would be caught dead in most churches nowadays, considering Jesus spoke out against the large churches that take in mountains of profit. So no, just about everyone their was either dragged there against their will (i.e. children), we're there just in case, went there to make themselves feel better than those heathens that don't, or as George Carlin said "Gather once a week to compare clothing". The most phony people I have EVER met, especially the pastors.
And what's also a pretty neat fact is that actually I still go to church from time to time.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] But it's true, Paul the Apostle(Saul of Tarsus) made some major(read crazy f00 straight contradictory) changes to Jesus teachings. Kinda stupid that the entirety of modern Christianity cherishes good ol' Saul to the extent that it does.
Can you please point out these "changes", or "contradictions."
There are a multitude of small, small, additions, subtractions, modifications etc. littered throughout NT after the four gospels, which makes it hard to point out any given "one" since they are intertwined and referative(is that even a word?) to each other. But a good practice to see what I mean is to read the NT from start to finish in a short timespan. When you have the gospels in fresh memory you'll notice the slight transformations that in the end sums up to large - albeit hard to pin-point - differences.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] It is only later, in postbiblical times, that many commentators and scribes make the two overlapping assumptions;
1.) The word "Torah" equates to the stretch of five documents that runs from Genesis to Deuteronomy.
2.) That Moses was the author of "Torah"(i.e the five books)
And the entire argument is based upon the first assumption, but let's make it clearer.
Even though the first 5 books of the Bible are referred to as the "Torah," the word "Torah" literally means "law." So before THE Torah was written the word "Torah" just meant "law."
Also a part of the problem. "Torah" does not literally mean "law", more accurately it translates to "teaching", "doctrine" or "instruction". An interpretive translation could give you "law", but an interpretive translation is a fuzzy thing since it rests on subjective assumptions.
I included a few of the terms used when refering using the word Torah. And as Berlinerblau points out; "What each term meant to biblical scribes living in different times is by no means easy to discern."
And onwards, "So before THE Torah was written the word "Torah" just meant "law"."
What is your base for the assumption that there is A Torah? Where is the information conveyed that "now Torah means Genesis through Deuteronomy as opposed to just "law"(your wording, not mine)" Please give me the information that you base it upon, cause when you really look there isn't any.
There are more reasons why that argument is incorrect, but I'll just wait for you to bring them up yourself as you always do.
I don't expect you to listen or reevaluate your stand in the question, so don't bother. I'm aiming at non-fundamentalists who have the integrity to dare examine it critically.
@game guy: Fundamentalists on both sides are viciously adequate at not seeing the socio-historic context of scripture(their loss imo), that's the main reason for the fundamentalism.
Btw, what is "the book of spirits and it's related stuff"? (just curious)
@game guy: Fundamentalists on both sides are viciously adequate at not seeing the socio-historic context of scripture(their loss imo), that's the main reason for the fundamentalism.
Btw, what is "the book of spirits and it's related stuff"? (just curious)
I see. Well, I hope they come to agree someday on the same thing which will benefit everyone hehe.
book of spirits was put together by Allan Kardec(written by a bunch of spirits)
The doctrine(not religion) has scientific bases and religious consequences. It’s rational, doesn’t accept preconceived idea or dogmas. Quite an interesting read for anyone whether you believe it or not and independent of your religion.
I said “releated stuff” because that book alone may not convince someone, and definitely doesn’t explain it all in details, but if you read all the other basic works by Allan Kardec and research on all the spiritism thing(manifested in the whole world) you’ll see what I mean. I was skeptical at first about the spirits thing. Read it, you won’t regret! The intro is kind of long but once you start reading the questions and answers by spirits you won’t stop reading it!
Originally Posted by HorrendousGames It's probably just a matter of perspective, but no Christian who would actually follow the teachings of Jesus would be caught dead in most churches nowadays, considering Jesus spoke out against the large churches that take in mountains of profit. So no, just about everyone their was either dragged there against their will (i.e. children), we're there just in case, went there to make themselves feel better than those heathens that don't, or as George Carlin said "Gather once a week to compare clothing". The most phony people I have EVER met, especially the pastors.
And what's also a pretty neat fact is that actually I still go to church from time to time.
Well you're right about this, and I feel the same way about those large churches.
I can't say that every large church is this way, but it seems to me that pastors that run thousands on Sunday morning aren't really preaching what the Bible says, but just saying what people want to hear.
A good church seems to be rare to find these days, but I think that if you can't find one you should just go to the best you can find. If anything to just have a place where you focus on God exclusively, and meet like-minded people.
And beyond that just pray for God to lead you to the right one.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] I don't expect you to listen or reevaluate your stand in the question, so don't bother.
Fine, it won't benefit anyone either way anyhow.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] When you have the gospels in fresh memory you'll notice the slight transformations that in the end sums up to large - albeit hard to pin-point - differences.
They're pretty easy to find actually, but the point is that they don't contradict each other. One of the most popular differences is the story about when Jesus curses the fig tree that wasn't bearing fruit. The explanation is slightly different in two of the Gospels, but the information is still the same, and that's all that's important, and I think that lends more validity to the story to get two different perspectives.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Also a part of the problem. "Torah" does not literally mean "law", more accurately it translates to "teaching", "doctrine" or "instruction". An interpretive translation could give you "law", but an interpretive translation is a fuzzy thing since it rests on subjective assumptions.
Right, so if you knew this much, then you see that J.B's observation is incorrect since the word Torah means more than just the first 5 books of the Bible, especially if used in the plural since "The Torah" isn't plural.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] What is your base for the assumption that there is A Torah? Where is the information conveyed that "now Torah means Genesis through Deuteronomy as opposed to just "law"(your wording, not mine)" Please give me the information that you base it upon, cause when you really look there isn't any.
Oh, it isn't an assumption, that's just what the Jewish people call it now since it contains law. It's just another name for it. It's also called the "Pentateuch," and that's another name for it too. More often than not though using "Pentateuch" refers to the oral version of the first 5 books, so I don't use it since I'd rather rely on the written version copied by the scribes. The written version would be read aloud every 7 years to the people because not many of them could read, and so that's the origin of the oral version.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] When you have the gospels in fresh memory you'll notice the slight transformations that in the end sums up to large - albeit hard to pin-point - differences.
They're pretty easy to find actually, but the point is that they don't contradict each other. One of the most popular differences is the story about when Jesus curses the fig tree that wasn't bearing fruit. The explanation is slightly different in two of the Gospels, but the information is still the same, and that's all that's important, and I think that lends more validity to the story to get two different perspectives.
You misunderstood me, I'm not meaning contradictions between the four Gospels and I'm not questioning the validity of their combined story. I meant that Paul(Saul from Tarsus) "morphs" the Gospels' witness throughout his missions and letters.
So "When you have the gospels in fresh memory you'll notice the slight transformations that in the end sums up to large - albeit hard to pin-point - differences" in Paul's teachings contra those of Jesus as portraited in the four Gospels.
Hope I made it clearer.
Oh, it isn't an assumption, that's just what the Jewish people call it now since it contains law. It's just another name for it.
Ok, I'm almost giving up here since I always get answers from you that are completely beside the question.
Once again, even more basic this time.
You believe Moses wrote the Torah.
My question:
Why Moses?
Let's take it from there.
//EE
Edit: And what was that about the oral Torah? You have clearly missed some fundamentals if you think that is what it means. Damn, even wikipedia has it more right.
I've noticed that this thread throws a error when I'm not logged in due to the Poll that was added. Ugh!
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] You misunderstood me, I'm not meaning contradictions between the four Gospels and I'm not questioning the validity of their combined story. I meant that Paul(Saul from Tarsus) "morphs" the Gospels' witness throughout his missions and letters.
I'm interested in seeing these differences then.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Ok, I'm almost giving up here since I always get answers from you that are completely beside the question.
Once again, even more basic this time.
You believe Moses wrote the Torah.
My question:
Why Moses?
Let's take it from there.
Because his name was on it, and has been for as far back as anyone can find. Until some sort of proof to the contrary comes up there is no reason to doubt Moses as the writer since he was the one who lead the Israelite's out of Egypt, and had direct communion with God.
Originally Posted by Eternal Man [EE] Edit: And what was that about the oral Torah? You have clearly missed some fundamentals if you think that is what it means. Damn, even wikipedia has it more right.
First off what makes you think wikipedia is right?
Second where was I wrong? Can you point it out. Admittedly I just spoke from memory.
One thing is for certain though, Torah refers to the first 5 books, and so does the word Pentateuch.
I forgot the exact name for the Oral version, but in any case I've often heard it referred to as the Pentateuch as well.
It doesn't really matter though all things considered since this isn't really what's being discussed.
Because his name was on it, and has been for as far back as anyone can find. Until some sort of proof to the contrary comes up there is no reason to doubt Moses as the writer since he was the one who lead the Israelite's out of Egypt, and had direct communion with God.
It wasn't uncommon to attribute writings to famous people, either as homage or a way to attract readers.
But lets say Moses did write it, why would he refer to himself in third person?
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Try to do what I said then; Read the entire NT in a short timespan, with the Gospels in fresh memory you'll notice small small changes and alterations to Jesus' teachings as according to Paul the (selfproclaimed) Apostle. In the end theology of Paul, these minor tweaks change the big picture of Jesus' teachings.
I don't know your posture towards Paul, so I wouldn't be surprised if you don't notice a thing. But do yourself a favour and try to read it with special attention to Paul's theological teachings.
Because his name was on it, and has been for as far back as anyone can find. Until some sort of proof to the contrary comes up there is no reason to doubt Moses as the writer since he was the one who lead the Israelite's out of Egypt, and had direct communion with God.
First, take note of what Phredreeke said, that is absolutely true. Take for instance the book of Isaiah, Song of songs and Ecclesiastes; rabbinic tradition give authorship of these to Hezekiah and his colleagues, whilst the bible in itself "seems to give some type of credit for these works to Isaiah, Solomon, and Koheleth, respectively."(J.B-Secular Bible)
In this section he's talking about the difference about ideas in hebrew scripture, and ideas about hebrew scripture.
An idea about hebrew scripture is that Moses wrote the Torah which he recieved directly from God on mt.Sinai, however, that is not an idea in hebrew scripture. Do you get the picture?
You are basing every last of your assumptions on what you see as an infallible script, the Bible. The base for your seeing the infallibility of the Pentateuch, Torah, Books of Moses etc. is that it is directly communicated from God to Moses, however, that is not a part of the infallible script, it's an idea about it. The earliest written mentionings about that idea that I know of are all past 50 BCE, and even then they are ambigous to one another regarding the details.
Moses is supposed to have written down the Torah either in 1312 BCE or 1233 BCE. If one is supposed to keep that knowledge orally for atleast 1000 years - together with all the goings on during the time - don't you see it quite plausible that the details risk being distorted?
First off what makes you think wikipedia is right?
Because on the subject it mostly is.
Second where was I wrong? Can you point it out. Admittedly I just spoke from memory.
One thing is for certain though, Torah refers to the first 5 books, and so does the word Pentateuch.
I forgot the exact name for the Oral version, but in any case I've often heard it referred to as the Pentateuch as well.
According to rabbinic tradition, Moses - except for receiving the written Torah - also recieved an oral Torah on how to apply the laws found in the written Torah on any given situation throughout time. The oral Torah was a dialog between God and Moses, this knowledge that Moses received was passed down to the leader of the next generation, Moses to Joshua and so on through time. Starting ca.200 CE(!) this oral material was written down and became known as the Talmud - the written oral Torah(however it's not the entire oral Torah, the entirety is 50 times the written Torah in size).
So the Pentateuch has nothing to do with the oral Torah.
It doesn't really matter though all things considered since this isn't really what's being discussed.
It matters since it shows that you lay forth as well underbuilt facts things you know nothing about! Creating a hugh pointing finger on the reason why it's almost impossible to discuss with you!
Creating a hugh pointing finger on the reason why it's almost impossible to discuss with you!
ROAR!
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by Eternal Man [EE]
