The Bible versus other religious texts

Robin

Established
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
449
Likes
831
Show me a single instance where I've countered a threat or a truthclaim with the same back to them? I always question the validity of those truthclaims and threats, and sometimes critique them and point out errors in them.

If I am proselytizing, please show me where and how. That would be quite funny, as I do often mentioned how much I am opposed to it.
If you reread my response you'll find I wasn't pointing out your hypocrisy (as it does not apply here) but your thinly veiled contempt and plea to victimhood.

Try imagining a world for a moment where everyone holds different strongly-held beliefs both with and against each other, what would you do?
would you counter that with more beliefs or start asking questions?
I'd certainly not go about it by demonizing an entire group of people and spawning countless hostile discussions that ultimately lead nowhere. You've made it clear how you feel about Christians and Christianity enough times for everyone to get the point.

Aggression aye? it'll take a turtle to walk a highway till you find any ounce of that. However, for the Christians here the same cannot be said.
Or a simple search of your name and the word "Christian". Again, it's a pot-kettle situation with you.

What kinds of points do you think I'm rejecting? I do not reject dignified responses to the questions I ask, afterall my goal is truth not illusion. I LOVE good responses that show care about the subject and show the same concerns about understanding the merits and pitfalls of different worldviews.
There have been some very good replies in several threads that you shut down immediately. You judge them by your metrics which is fine but then you have no right to claim the things you do about lack of responses when the truth is you don't like the ones you get.

Lets try an experiment Robin, since you've started participating in this thread. You offer me a "point" about my OP? then we will discuss if what you put forth is a deserving response.
Remember that agreement is not what is ever being asked on any of these threads, it's reasoning and understanding the process of acquiring beliefs.
I already have. And no thanks, I've learned not to play these games with you. The arrogance of turning an invitation to debate or discuss into a test of seeing whether my reply is "worthy" enough for your intellect. I'd rather live out my faith and manifest how it's changed me in real life than waste energy with pointless forum brawls which is why I don't really participate in them anymore. But I don't have any ill will toward you. Enjoy the rest of your day.
 





Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
675
Likes
1,249
The Book of Isaiah was written nearly 700 years BC. His “seal” appears to have been recently found btw:-
700 BC lol. Some people would rather live in fantasy land than deal with reality.

"The Isaiah scroll, the oldest surviving manuscript of Isaiah, found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and dating from about 150 to 100 BCE, it contains almost the whole Book of Isaiah and is substantially identical with the modern Masoretic text."
 





Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
954
Likes
741
I already have. And no thanks, I've learned not to play these games with you. The arrogance of turning an invitation to debate or discuss into a test of seeing whether my reply is "worthy" enough for your intellect. I'd rather live out my faith and manifest how it's changed me in real life than waste energy with pointless forum brawls which is why I don't really participate in them anymore. But I don't have any ill will toward you. Enjoy the rest of your day.
Lets cut through the senseless metacommentary and examine this thread for starters.
As very clear by the title of this thread, we are discussing "The Bible versus other religious texts".
In my OP I asked for (in an allegorical manner, because we are obviously not in a bookstore) Christians to give their views and reasons for such views of why they believe in the Bible in comparison to the texts of other religions.
Please tell me what is unreasonable about this and please tell me one instance where a Christian here started discussing either angle of the question? (The Bible's authority vs their experience and views on other religious texts)


As for proselytizing, here it is straight away in the quotes of this post on page one: https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/the-bible-versus-other-religious-texts.6290/post-233642

Heck I even went to clarify explicitly what I was asking in this post: https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/the-bible-versus-other-religious-texts.6290/post-233653 yet look how openly the Christians here have evaded this and instead turned it into ad hominem against me.
 





Robin

Established
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
449
Likes
831
Lets cut through the senseless metacommentary and examine this thread for starters.
As very clear by the title of this thread, we are discussing "The Bible versus other religious texts".
In my OP I asked for (in an allegorical manner, because we are obviously not in a bookstore) Christians to give their views and reasons for such views of why they believe in the Bible in comparison to the texts of other religions.
Please tell me what is unreasonable about this and please tell me one instance where a Christian here started discussing either angle of the question? (The Bible's authority vs their experience and views on other religious texts)


As for proselytizing, here it is straight away in the quotes of this post on page one: https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/the-bible-versus-other-religious-texts.6290/post-233642

Heck I even went to clarify explicitly what I was asking in this post: https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/the-bible-versus-other-religious-texts.6290/post-233653 yet look how openly the Christians here have evaded this and instead turned it into ad hominem against me.
To be perfectly honest, I find this whole exercise senseless which is why I am respectfully exiting this thread. I have said everything I needed to say to you. Feel free to turn me into another example of Christians "evading the question" if you wish. For my part though, I am done.
 





Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
954
Likes
741
To be perfectly honest, I find this whole exercise senseless which is why I am respectfully exiting this thread. I have said everything I needed to say to you. Feel free to turn me into another example of Christians "evading the question" if you wish. For my part though, I am done.
Would you agree that there is nothing unreasonable about what I have asked in this thread? (and from those linked threads)

Please answer.
 





Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
4,115
Likes
5,175
@elsbet
I would advice you to read the reply to that post as well and also try to answer the thread, it was a good question related back to the question of divine revelation itself and how that can possibly be reconciled with the believe in the Bible. That discussion is not for this thread.
But... and these are your words--

The truth is that there is no way to reconcile them...
 





shankara

Established
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
352
Likes
471
You have rejected core Christian doctrines because they did not make sense to your human understanding.
I would say that our Understanding or Reason in it's higher aspect, which is to say not mental speculation but logical insight founded on the stillness of mind brought about by spiritual practices such as meditation, is the part of us which is truly "made in the image of God". @Infinityloop is quite right in saying that the claims Christianity makes don't stand up to logical and philosophical analysis, especially the Protestant form of it. For one you are actually against engaging in the contemplative practices necessary to arrive at comprehension, including comprehension about the validity of dogmas.

In fact your (plural) own literalist and selective interpretation of the scriptures is based on a "human" concept about how those scriptures should be interpreted. You believe that you have arrived at absolute truth and close your minds to anything which calls into question the dogmas of your belief system. @Infinityloop has studied the scriptures of many religions with an open mind and thus can see through the shallow reasoning with which you defend an untenable belief system.
 





Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
954
Likes
741
But... and these are your words--
"The truth is that there is no way to reconcile them. If you believe in God and accept the Prophets, then you have to categorically deny the Bible, very literally." (the full quote which you left out which I explore below)

Yes they are my words, this is my view and you will come to see exactly what I mean by this when you read the post I've linked at the bottom of this reply. Even though you would interpret it as so, I am not actually meaning rejecting the Bible entirely but rather the assumptions and role of authority you hold to it, this will once again be explored in length in the post I link at the bottom of this reply.


These are your words:

I don't believe that. You showed your hand when you opened that rhetorical thread, admitting you wouldn't believe any response.
You are trying to put words in my mouth and this is fraudulent.

Please follow me here are lets work this out together:

https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/t...-and-prophets-with-the-bible.6270/post-232649

Maybe I was too vague asking that OP, perhaps I was but I was asking a direct question - how the belief in the Prophets (from Adam to Jesus presumably) can be reconciled with the simultaneous belief in the Bible at the same time. There are so many different aspects that could be tackled by Christians to show me where their reasoning lay but between post #1 and post #17, I had nobody trying to give their reasoning, as asked, for holding the Bible with the Prophets simultaneously.

And I will state to make myself very clear to you, belief in the Prophets is a different thing from belief in the Bible. One is a historical phenomenon relating to God revealing itself and guiding spiritual figures, and the other is belief in a book.
Both COULD be correct, both could also be false, this is why the opportunity is given to explore the legitimacy of both and how they relate to each other. Once again, the Prophets and the Bible are two separate realities, even if they are both true.
However without that exploration and reasoning, I do not think there is much to hold onto there. I mean no disrespect :)

Please follow on reading.


Lets take a quick examination of those replies leading up to the statement of mine you quote in post #18 to see why I introduced my views into that thread:

#2 by Axl888 = He did not bring up anything about the Prophets, he re-established that he takes the Bible as his only authority. This was not what I was asking.
#3 - #4 by Stephania = She commented on how Islam shares Prophets with Christianity. This I do respect because she is showing more awareness about the side of Prophets more than just self-referencing herself with the Bible, this is good. However she did not speak about the Bible's role in the grand-arch of Prophets throughout history.
#5 by Mark = He answered a question I didn't ask, he was referring to the Old and New testaments, with the Christian view that the New Testament is a fulfillment and abrogation of the Old. Again, not what was being asked.
#7 by me in response to Haich = This is in reference to the growing emphasis I keep seeing from Christians of treating things like a book club (and also regarding closed-canon) rather than seeing the view of the Prophets as actual living people in history. This will be explained in far greater length in a lengthy OP post I will link below.
#8 by Thunderian = I found his comment beyond incoherent, it was blathering. His comment was an example of what I term a self-referential closed system. He is not actually speaking of Prophets in his post, he is speaking of the Bible. The question being asked is not merely the Bible itself and it's contents, it is the real-life component completely missing from the Bible as a closed text. Again, this will be explored in depth in the post I'll link below.
#9 by me to Thunderian = This is correct. The First Epistle of John is a letter written by a man called John to an early pre-Christian church.
#10 by me to Thunderian = Clearly I don't actually think Jesus was a false Prophet. This post is me challenging the cognitive dissonance between three different sources (none of them are the Historical Jesus btw, so the Prophet angle is not tackled): The Old Testament, The New Testament and Christian trinitarian doctrine. I brought that up there because he stated "total agreement" which I see to be very much contrary to the reality of what the Bible itself says. I questioned whether Jesus could be considered a false Prophet, not because I thought that but within the preconceptions set up by Thunderian that presumed that Jesus taught a trinitarian view of God.
#11by Thunderian = He self-referenced himself again quoting another letter, this time by Saint Peter (supposedly) which is written for another early pre-Christian church. This is once again avoiding any resemblance to what I am asking in that thread.
#12 by Thunderian = Now this one is very baffling. He states that Jesus never contradicts the 'word of God'. In Christian theology Jesus or The Son, himself, is the word of God. So he is stating that Jesus doesn't contradict himself. The other interpretation common by Christians is to make the self-contradictory and illogical claim that the Bible itself is "word of God" (even though it is just historical narratives written by men for the most part), which would just mean that Thunderian is stating "Jesus does not contradict himself from the only texts we read him in" which is just circular reasoning - and once again a reason why I made the thread itself.
#14 by me to Thunderian = This is a counter argument to the allegations I see from Christians claiming Muhammad to be a false Prophet. I am once again here trying to provoke critical thought in Thunderian's mind to see how his own book can be seen to disprove itself under certain presumptions.
#15 by Thunderian = Honestly I find it to be the opposite. I asked about how belief in the Prophets can be reconciled with belief in the Bible. I've already explained his replies above.



Now, I asked that thread to get views. After those 17 posts I chimed in to give my own views. I am allowed my views and they shouldn't be seen as attacking anyone, they are my observations from studying the Bible, Christianity, Judaism and all the related movements in pre-Judaism and pre-Christianity. I read the Bible a lot and am familiar with it, I do not speak from ignorance of what they Bible says, I merely share a view which does not agree with your adherence to mainstream doctrines that are accepted in spite of what the Bible itself teaches.

The following post which I will link is the one which I've mentioned twice above. Please read it with an open mind, there is no malice in any of this, only honesty on my part. If I am wrong on anything I'd gladly learn where and how. The problem is that I always encounter not constructive argument or correction, but rather re-affirmation of already-held doctrines and attempts to defame and insult me for asking questions on these topics. I find it shocking that Christians would do such things.

Please read this: https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/t...-my-conclusions-from-studying-the-bible.6712/
(@Robin please read the linked post as well)


Thanks, have a nice day. God bless :)
 





Last edited:
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
4,115
Likes
5,175
"The truth is that there is no way to reconcile them. If you believe in God and accept the Prophets, then you have to categorically deny the Bible, very literally." (the full quote which you left out which I explore below)

Yes they are my words, this is my view and you will come to see exactly what I mean by this when you read the post I've linked at the bottom of this reply. Even though you would interpret it as so, I am not actually meaning rejecting the Bible entirely but rather the assumptions and role of authority you hold to it, this will once again be explored in length in the post I link at the bottom of this reply.
These are your words:
You are trying to put words in my mouth and this is fraudulent.
:)
I disagree, obviously. Moving along...

... how do you account for all of the non-canonical books mentioned within different books in the Bible (predominantly in the Old Testament). Are they referring to real books or just strange metaphors? if they are referring to real books, then how can the concept of canon have any meaning?

The best term I've heard so far-- and this is for Enoch, Jubilees and Jasher, only-- is that they are Extra-biblical, biblically endorsed texts. (COINED BY ROB SKIBA)

What else is there to do, since CANON was not determined in our lifetimes? That these books were removed, however, makes sense, considering their pivotal nature---> a study of Enoch provides an entirely new lens, through which the Old Testament can (and should) be viewed.
 





Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
1,094
Likes
1,001
The Gospels. It's not mythology, it's not the writings of a victorious henotheistic cult, not an amalgam of adapted scriptures from a variety of religions, it's not mere philosophy, it's not mere spirituality. It's unequalled and unprecedented divine revelation.
 





Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
675
Likes
1,249
The Gospels. It's not mythology, it's not the writings of a victorious henotheistic cult, not an amalgam of adapted scriptures from a variety of religions, it's not mere philosophy, it's not mere spirituality. It's unequalled and unprecedented divine revelation.
Save this for the pulpit on Sunday man! :D

It's unprecedented divine revelation to you, originating in a select, tiny parcel of the planet.

@AspiringSoul has touched on these ideas, but it's easy to see a pattern within the development of religious understanding universally, and in separate regions. In the case of Christianity, the sect of Krishna worshipers in India took form at least a few hundred years before Jesus. Krishna was the incarnation of God/Brahma, the intangible made into divine human, etc. There are MANY striking similarities but most notable is both Krishna's and Christ's essential teaching is of love and devotional worship.

I've seen from other threads, self-centered Christians have a difficult time acknowledging the academic/historical truth of our religions. Evidence shows Judaism began sometime between 200-400 BC. By the 1st century there were 3 major divisions, the Pharisee, Sadducee, and Essene/Therapeuts. Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who's teachings strongly exemplified Essenic beliefs. We have some knowledge about the 1st century AD prophets and apostles, much more about 2nd-3rd century Gnosticism and the eventual codifying of Hellenic theology in the 4th century.

The irony isn't that the Roman theologians based their contrived theories of Jesus on the philosophy of Plato, Philo, and Plotinus, it's that the earliest Greek philosphers like Socrates and Plato received their knowledge from travels to the Far East!

Not to hurt anyone's feels, but the Biblios is not the center of the world. It may be the center of your life, but that's all. There are Australian Aboriginals whose oral traditions go back 10,000 years. Have some respect people. Until we can value our spirituality and connection to the earth as equal to each other, we are no better than the fake priests and authorities Jesus condemned.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
8,366
Likes
12,397
Not to hurt anyone's feels, but the Biblios is not the center of the world. It may be the center of your life, but that's all. There are Australian Aboriginals whose oral traditions go back 10,000 years. Have some respect people. Until we can value our spirituality and connection to the earth as equal to each other, we are no better than the fake priests and authorities Jesus condemned.
The Sumarians of Mesopotamia have an account that appears to be a counter-narrative of the characters described in Genesis 6 as the Nephilim.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apkallu


Apkallu (Akkadian) and Abgal (Sumerian) are terms found in cuneiform inscriptions that in general mean either "wise" or "sage."

In several contexts the Apkallu are seven demi-gods, sometimes described as part man and part fish, associated with human wisdom; these creatures are often referred to in scholarly literature as the Seven Sages. Sometimes the sages are associated with a specific primeval king. After the deluge (see Epic of Gilgamesh), further sages and kings are listed. Post-deluge, the sages are considered human, and in some texts are distinguished by being referred to as Ummanu, not Apkallu.

The terms Apkallu (as well as Abgal) is also used as an epithet for kings and gods as a mark of wisdom or knowledge.

A further use of the term Apkallu is when referring to figurines used in apotropaic rituals; these figurines include fish-man hybrids representing the seven sages, but also include bird-headed and other figures.

In a later work by Berossus describing Babylonia, the Apkallu appear again, also described as fish-men who are sent by the gods to impart knowledge to people. In Berossus, the first one Oannes (a variant of Uanna) is said to have taught people the creation myth the Enuma Elis (qv)


The story of the Apkallu casts these fallen “sons of God” as the good guys.

There are many narratives out there which are mutually exclusive and not all of them can be true.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
675
Likes
1,249
The Sumarians of Mesopotamia have an account if the characters described in Genesis 6 as the Nephilim.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apkallu


The story of the Apkallu casts these fallen “sons of God” as the good guys.

There are many narratives out there which are mutually exclusive and not all of them can be true.
Enoch the Ethiopian, cool. Looks like a long lecture but I have time coming up- we'll check it out.

What if all narratives are "true"? Why does it have to be a competition? Traditional religions share almost identical values anyways. Even within a set religion, every member is having his/her own experience. The texts and stories are guideposts handed down by our ancestors... the journey is still made by the individual.

I'd say we have a part of every concept within each of us, or the ability to at least comprehend, just like we're made of the same atoms. Greece had their stoics and atheists, in the same way India has their Buddhists and types of deists.

I'm not at all saying dilute the traditions and become some new age melting pot, but let's spread honesty and inter-religious dialogue. The most important thing is expanding our capacity for compassion.

My opinion is the overly emotional and evangelical tone of modern Christianity does a disservice to the self. The exaggerated declarations cause division. Because of Luther's doctrines and evangelical revivalism there's this expectation a follower of Jesus has to have a supernatural born again experience to talk about God; that extreme, revelatory assertions are necessary or faith isn't real (Jesus is God, the Bible is the Word of God, etc.).

If there wasn't such a flagrant display of hypocrisy, emptiness, and ill-will from (some) followers of the Old and New Testament there would be no question of claims of authority.

I think there's an inherent wish to be recognized, also a special want to share our vision of truth with those we believe we can help. It's a noble aim but for the sake of peaceful co-habitation the world will have to show greater friendship/tolerance than we read at this forum. To imagine we alone have the direct line to "God", or that our way is the only path to righteousness... that is narcissism and a dangerous stumbling-block.
 





Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
4,115
Likes
5,175
Save this for the pulpit on Sunday man! :D

It's unprecedented divine revelation to you, originating in a select, tiny parcel of the planet.

@AspiringSoul has touched on these ideas, but it's easy to see a pattern within the development of religious understanding universally, and in separate regions. In the case of Christianity, the sect of Krishna worshipers in India took form at least a few hundred years before Jesus. Krishna was the incarnation of God/Brahma, the intangible made into divine human, etc. There are MANY striking similarities but most notable is both Krishna's and Christ's essential teaching is of love and devotional worship.

I've seen from other threads, self-centered Christians have a difficult time acknowledging the academic/historical truth of our religions. Evidence shows Judaism began sometime between 200-400 BC. By the 1st century there were 3 major divisions, the Pharisee, Sadducee, and Essene/Therapeuts. Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who's teachings strongly exemplified Essenic beliefs. We have some knowledge about the 1st century AD prophets and apostles, much more about 2nd-3rd century Gnosticism and the eventual codifying of Hellenic theology in the 4th century.

The irony isn't that the Roman theologians based their contrived theories of Jesus on the philosophy of Plato, Philo, and Plotinus, it's that the earliest Greek philosphers like Socrates and Plato received their knowledge from travels to the Far East!

Not to hurt anyone's feels, but the Biblios is not the center of the world. It may be the center of your life, but that's all. There are Australian Aboriginals whose oral traditions go back 10,000 years. Have some respect people. Until we can value our spirituality and connection to the earth as equal to each other, we are no better than the fake priests and authorities Jesus condemned.
lol @respect

'... we are no better than the fake priests and authorities Jesus condemned.'
'... contrived theories of Jesus'

Sounds like you've read about the bible, rather than the bible, itself.

People have been following gods since time immemorial-- that is a crucial part of the story. Considering the subject matter, it is silly to assume the first recorded information is somehow more authentic, spiritually, reasonably or logically, simply because it came first.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
8,366
Likes
12,397
lol @respect

'... we are no better than the fake priests and authorities Jesus condemned.'


'... contrived theories of Jesus'

Sounds like you've read more about the bible, rather than the bible, itself.

People have been following gods since time immemorial-- that is a crucial part of the story. Considering the subject matter, it is silly to assume the first recorded information is somehow more authentic, spiritually, reasonably or logically, simply because it came first.
This talk picks up from where the Michael S. Heiser talk left off.


The very long but very interesting talk above ties in interestingly with a dialogue between C.S.. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien on the power of “true myth”:-

 





Last edited:

shankara

Established
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
352
Likes
471
lol @respect

'... we are no better than the fake priests and authorities Jesus condemned.'


'... contrived theories of Jesus'

Sounds like you've read more about the bible, rather than the bible, itself.

People have been following gods since time immemorial-- that is a crucial part of the story. Considering the subject matter, it is silly to assume the first recorded information is somehow more authentic, spiritually, reasonably or logically, simply because it came first.
I think that comparing so-called Christians to Pharisees is vastly more respectful than believing that someone is so fundamentally evil that they have to burn in hell forever. I have read the Bible quite a bit, especially the Four Gospels, and I don't find your doctrines in it. In fact you can only arrive at such doctrines by:

Literalism - ignoring the often obvious symbolic meanings of verses

Selectivity - paying attention only to those verses which reinforce your fixed worldview

Counter-intutive interpretation - interpreting other verses in ways that fit with your way of thinking, even when it's obvious that they signify something quite different

For example:
'Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me."'

Which seems to suggest that it is a process of self-overcoming and renunciation which Yeshua is suggesting, a type of spiritual struggle and not simply 'belief' or better said blind faith...

"To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

Is it not those who are convinced that they are alright with God, i.e. "saved" that the Pharisee represents? And the tax collector would be all of those who don't feel that they are an elect assured of salvation, but rather understand that they have to battle for their salvation by self-overcoming.

"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

And:

“But woe unto you that are rich, for ye have received your consolation."

But despite this many so-called Christians are in favor of the corporations, welcome the rich and even devote their energies to chasing wealth.

I could go on interpreting many passages like this, coming to conclusions very distant from the dogmas of the organized church...
 





Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
1,094
Likes
1,001
Save this for the pulpit on Sunday man! :D

It's unprecedented divine revelation to you, originating in a select, tiny parcel of the planet.

@AspiringSoul has touched on these ideas, but it's easy to see a pattern within the development of religious understanding universally, and in separate regions. In the case of Christianity, the sect of Krishna worshipers in India took form at least a few hundred years before Jesus. Krishna was the incarnation of God/Brahma, the intangible made into divine human, etc. There are MANY striking similarities but most notable is both Krishna's and Christ's essential teaching is of love and devotional worship.

I've seen from other threads, self-centered Christians have a difficult time acknowledging the academic/historical truth of our religions. Evidence shows Judaism began sometime between 200-400 BC. By the 1st century there were 3 major divisions, the Pharisee, Sadducee, and Essene/Therapeuts. Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who's teachings strongly exemplified Essenic beliefs. We have some knowledge about the 1st century AD prophets and apostles, much more about 2nd-3rd century Gnosticism and the eventual codifying of Hellenic theology in the 4th century.

The irony isn't that the Roman theologians based their contrived theories of Jesus on the philosophy of Plato, Philo, and Plotinus, it's that the earliest Greek philosphers like Socrates and Plato received their knowledge from travels to the Far East!

Not to hurt anyone's feels, but the Biblios is not the center of the world. It may be the center of your life, but that's all. There are Australian Aboriginals whose oral traditions go back 10,000 years. Have some respect people. Until we can value our spirituality and connection to the earth as equal to each other, we are no better than the fake priests and authorities Jesus condemned.
Hey, didn't I play according to the rules? We were asked what scripture we'd recommend and why. My answer was given in complete sincerity.

I've done comparative religious research myself and in no way am I denying any divine revelations prior to Christian revelation. But I explicitly said "unequalled and unprecedented" to emphasize the uniqueness of divine revelation brought by Jesus. There are definitely overlaps between Christianity and certain Vedic teachings concerning the relationship between Krishna, Brahman and Atman, for instance, one could even extract trinities from the Vedic traditions and Zoroastrianism that are indeed strikingly similar to the Christian trinity, but there are still essential revelations in Christianity that are different.

It's not so much that the Bible is the center of human history, it's God entering human history as Jesus which is central, an event that is documented in the Gospels. Even Zoroaster prophesied about Christ or the Benefactor (Saoshyant) and I by no means reject the possibility of his prophetic legitimacy, quite the contrary in fact.
 





Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
675
Likes
1,249
Hey, didn't I play according to the rules? We were asked what scripture we'd recommend and why. My answer was given in complete sincerity.

I've done comparative religious research myself and in no way am I denying any divine revelations prior to Christian revelation. But I explicitly said "unequalled and unprecedented" to emphasize the uniqueness of divine revelation brought by Jesus. There are definitely overlaps between Christianity and certain Vedic teachings concerning the relationship between Krishna, Brahman and Atman, for instance, one could even extract trinities from the Vedic traditions and Zoroastrianism that are indeed strikingly similar to the Christian trinity, but there are still essential revelations in Christianity that are different.

It's not so much that the Bible is the center of human history, it's God entering human history as Jesus which is central, an event that is documented in the Gospels. Even Zoroaster prophesied about Christ or the Benefactor (Saoshyant) and I by no means reject the possibility of his prophetic legitimacy, quite the contrary in fact.
Right on, I see where your coming from. It's a rare trait for Christians to be able to communicate their faith in plain terms that everyone can get, whether a scientist or from another religion, whoever. I'm only bugging over parts of the culture I interpret as ignorance, ill-will, arrogance, and fanaticism.

The world will be a different place when we can explain ourselves (in words) with complete love and respect for our neighbors. It's enough for a Christian to say, "hey the Bible may not be the center of human creation but for us it is that. We love God, the Bible, and the Messiah and that is the source of OUR theology." People spend hours using biblical scripture to validate the Bible, it's madness. There's no shame in admitting we truly don't know who wrote the books of the NT, because the works of God through us will speak for themselves. Honestly that type of humility will have people knocking on the doors to get back in the church! :D A shift in attitudes of Christians could transform this world drastically.

Thanks for hearing me out.