According to the Bible...
It's your God, your Bible, and your Hell.
It's your God, your Bible, and your Hell.
God, Jesus, Holy Spirit: Holy Bible
- Thread starter GodLied
- Start date
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
For the third time: Jesus said this where? ... reported by whom? ... written when?
It comes after the parable of the good shepherd in John 10
9), which has a clear connection with the shepherd messiah prophesied in Ezek. 34 and Jer. 23.John (before 90AD) -> Jesus (between 30 and 33AD) -> Prophets Ezekiel and Jeremiah (during the exile to Babylon, ca 598 BC) -> Israel (God's chosen) <- God's creation <- God
You can trace it back as far as you like, but with each step it will only become harder for you to believe.
Last edited:
I also believe Jesus came to show us the light of God, and He didn't lie. He said He was the light of God made visible:
35..."You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. The man who walks in the dark does not know where he is going. 36Put your trust in the light while you have it, so that you may become sons of light." (John 12)
Through Jesus we are able to walk in the light. God's light, which Jesus filtered enough to make visible and protects us from dying, because nobody can see God and live - like the veil that covered Moses' face. Jesus pointed out the way, but also walked it himself so that we could follow in his footsteps and would not stray from the light.
I don't want to argue with you. The Christian understanding is and will remain foreign to you. I know that calling God "Father" seems like shirk, but we can only do it because Jesus has. Jesus is a stumbling block to Jews and Muslims because of this. We still only look to God for our salvation, but we recognize God's salvation in Jesus.
I think what M*W believes is far more dangerous, as she is equating creation with God himself.
Last edited:
Re: Jenyar's dancing faster than I can type
We are creations of God, made to love as He loves us. We are not gods, we are humans. Not "godhead" - humanity.
My experience is that people don't hesitate to trample each in their quest to "attain godliness on earth". People should stop trying to be God, and just start being human!
Here's my take on it: we, and the earth we live on, were created, and we were meant to be physical, conscious people (not "beings" or something other than we seem to be), to exhibit the vast potential to love we have been endowed with, to share, explore, live, learn and respect our existence here on earth using all our intellectual potential, and to hold on to God using all our spiritual potential. The totality of all of this, is to act in accordance with God's purpose in creating us.
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' and 'Love your neighbour as yourself."
or we are created beings who are missing our goal in life by chasing after power and "peace" so hard, that instead of accepting our uniqueness, realizing that we have to work on relationships (not energies), and that our wish to act independently from our Maker is causing us and our fellow creations immeasurable agony and suffering.
What "greater scheme of things" could there be, if we are it? Have we, as god, decided to play a little game with ourselves: give each of our "cells" a consciousness and a will of its own, thereby giving them an individual sense of purpose and direction, and try to puzzle ourselves back into one harmonious being again?
You've got one thing right, though: in both cases we are striving against ourselves and our intrinsic value. But we have that value because we are creations of God, not because it is an unrealized potential of our own godliness.
I don't believe in Zeus, I believe in "I am". Who is not distant from us. Immanuel means "God is with us". The distance is one people are enforcing, not God. God has overthrown this distance by bridging the rift between life and death.
You say "everything was pre-arranged even before we came here" - how or by whom? "Arrangement" suggest an imposed order. I think we are constantly disarranging ourselves into lies like "we are god" instead of accepting that we are fallible and fragile human beings in need of God's sustenance.
We weren't created "lowly sinful creatures who should cower in fear" - that was the result of our arrogence to suppose we could assume the authority of God himself. Our description fits our circumstances. We are only "sinners" because we have sinned. We are only "lowly" because we have lifted ourselves up. Likewise, we only have to fear God if we rebel against Him.
"There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. We love because He first loved us."
We don't have to be lowly and sinful, but trying to be God is not what is going to make us great and worthy. Just look at history.
Why not let sleeping gods lie?
Why should we "attempt to attain it" if we will return to it when we die anyway, or if it is a natural state that is part and parcel with life itself?
Why call it "god" if it is merely the Great Intertwined Human Soul? Since according to your theory we share the pain and poverty of majority of people on earth, why is this Godhead in such a terrible state, if we are God? All you seem to be saying, is that "god" is the ideal, and why must try to achieve that ideal state as a unified human race - death and all. As long as there is life on earth, it seems, we are prolonging suffering and postponing "God".
Does that even matter if my contribution and place in the godhead is just as valid as yours? If you and I share the same "godness", can anybody be wrong? Isn't my consciousness only a manifestation of yours, and vice versa? Or is our common god divided within himself?
Our purpose is to love God and love each other because we are equally valuable in His eyes. We are vessels of God, but some arestill empty vessels waiting to be filled with God's Spirit.
We are creations of God, made to love as He loves us. We are not gods, we are humans. Not "godhead" - humanity.
My experience is that people don't hesitate to trample each in their quest to "attain godliness on earth". People should stop trying to be God, and just start being human!
Let me get this straight: we are essentially (optimally) spiritual beings before and after death, but our goal is to try and remain physical beings for as long as possible - fighting off natural death - while also trying to reach our intrinsic spiritual potential :bugeye:. Why were we even born in the first place, if being a purely spiritual "god" was the most energy efficient configuration?
Here's my take on it: we, and the earth we live on, were created, and we were meant to be physical, conscious people (not "beings" or something other than we seem to be), to exhibit the vast potential to love we have been endowed with, to share, explore, live, learn and respect our existence here on earth using all our intellectual potential, and to hold on to God using all our spiritual potential. The totality of all of this, is to act in accordance with God's purpose in creating us.
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' and 'Love your neighbour as yourself."
Wait, stop right there: which is the "negative understanding" - that we are all together an insufficient, inept and inadequate god trying to reach his own disembodied potential, struggling against a force of death that has infiltrated our harmonic existence and is cutting us up from the inside out ...
or we are created beings who are missing our goal in life by chasing after power and "peace" so hard, that instead of accepting our uniqueness, realizing that we have to work on relationships (not energies), and that our wish to act independently from our Maker is causing us and our fellow creations immeasurable agony and suffering.
What "greater scheme of things" could there be, if we are it? Have we, as god, decided to play a little game with ourselves: give each of our "cells" a consciousness and a will of its own, thereby giving them an individual sense of purpose and direction, and try to puzzle ourselves back into one harmonious being again?
You've got one thing right, though: in both cases we are striving against ourselves and our intrinsic value. But we have that value because we are creations of God, not because it is an unrealized potential of our own godliness.
So we are an evolving god?
I don't believe in Zeus, I believe in "I am". Who is not distant from us. Immanuel means "God is with us". The distance is one people are enforcing, not God. God has overthrown this distance by bridging the rift between life and death.
You say "everything was pre-arranged even before we came here" - how or by whom? "Arrangement" suggest an imposed order. I think we are constantly disarranging ourselves into lies like "we are god" instead of accepting that we are fallible and fragile human beings in need of God's sustenance.
We weren't created "lowly sinful creatures who should cower in fear" - that was the result of our arrogence to suppose we could assume the authority of God himself. Our description fits our circumstances. We are only "sinners" because we have sinned. We are only "lowly" because we have lifted ourselves up. Likewise, we only have to fear God if we rebel against Him.
"There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. We love because He first loved us."
We don't have to be lowly and sinful, but trying to be God is not what is going to make us great and worthy. Just look at history.
Great, then nobody needs to worry. Why should I bother realizing my own godliness? Someone more qualified than I is likely to do it, and since I am in essence a part of him, I will just assume my natural place in the order of things. If it doesn't happen during my lifetime, I'll just wait for death to claim my rightful spiritual place. If I am my own salvation, my own god, and my own judge, then why are you trying so hard to get me to understand? My ignorance and obstinance doesn't make me any less god, does it? Or am I a disgrace to our name?
Why not let sleeping gods lie?
Last edited:
I have been speaking to Raithere, and I must say, he's one of the most understanding and wise people I have spoken to in the area of religion. He told me something that opened my eyes. Raithere told me that the message or the way is known and fixed regardless of the messangers, and while prophets or Jesus can travel the way to show us, the existance of the way is independant of the prophet existance. That's why I don't agree with the biblical verse that states that Jesus is the way. Jesus is not the way, yet he knows the way by the permission of god and thus delivered to humanity the gospels and good news of the way. yet to each of us, we still must travel the way, not through jesus, but guided by the message of Jesus, and we will be judged based on our understanding, afterall, god gave us a complicated brain so that we must be accountable for our action, and not to follow a cookie Jesus cutter blindly...With or without Jesus, the way to god exist.....
You both are very very similar, although you might not think it. Both of you are avoiding god and closing your eyes and ears to god. Both of you would rather cling to something that you seem to have familiarity or control over. Total reliance on your own selves seems pretty sufficient, and reliance on another human living prophet seems comfortable to many. But I know that I'm not in total control of myself. I can't even set my date of birth or death, or grant myself happiness or misery. I do have some free will within the context and permission of god, but truly by myself, I'm nothing. To that extent, I agree with you that believing that I'm godly is a dangerous thought, but so is believing that I'm a son or daughter of god, cause I dare not prejudge myself while god have no judged me yet. I'm but a servant of god totally under god's mercy. All the good deeds in this world couldn't save me, and another may not intercede for me. It's totally up to my god to show me mercy or condemn me.
Both of you don't know the meaning of the word submittion yet. Submittion means unconditional believe and reliance on an object, if the submission is true, it must remain unchanged no matter what life brings you. So you chose a human beneath god to grant your submittion to. And I ask you, what would happen to your believe if that human, jesus, would tell you, I'm just a servant of god just like you....What would you do, if he told you that???....Please answer this last question for me, and don't tell me, but he said such and such in the bible.......What would you do, if Jesus told you, I'm just a servant of god and of needing of god mercy just like you. What if Jesus told you, I can't do anything for you, and you have to please my father and master in heaven. If your faith is true, and I doubt it is, then you would tell Jesus, regardless of that statement, I still believe that you are my only way, but if you change your mind, then your faith have no feet.
You both are very very similar, although you might not think it. Both of you are avoiding god and closing your eyes and ears to god. Both of you would rather cling to something that you seem to have familiarity or control over. Total reliance on your own selves seems pretty sufficient, and reliance on another human living prophet seems comfortable to many. But I know that I'm not in total control of myself. I can't even set my date of birth or death, or grant myself happiness or misery. I do have some free will within the context and permission of god, but truly by myself, I'm nothing. To that extent, I agree with you that believing that I'm godly is a dangerous thought, but so is believing that I'm a son or daughter of god, cause I dare not prejudge myself while god have no judged me yet. I'm but a servant of god totally under god's mercy. All the good deeds in this world couldn't save me, and another may not intercede for me. It's totally up to my god to show me mercy or condemn me.
Both of you don't know the meaning of the word submittion yet. Submittion means unconditional believe and reliance on an object, if the submission is true, it must remain unchanged no matter what life brings you. So you chose a human beneath god to grant your submittion to. And I ask you, what would happen to your believe if that human, jesus, would tell you, I'm just a servant of god just like you....What would you do, if he told you that???....Please answer this last question for me, and don't tell me, but he said such and such in the bible.......What would you do, if Jesus told you, I'm just a servant of god and of needing of god mercy just like you. What if Jesus told you, I can't do anything for you, and you have to please my father and master in heaven. If your faith is true, and I doubt it is, then you would tell Jesus, regardless of that statement, I still believe that you are my only way, but if you change your mind, then your faith have no feet.
Xianity is hard to believe
Jenyar, you've just made an amazing statement! You have finally admitted to the fallacy of Xianity. "You can trace it back as far as you like, but with each step it will only become harder for you to believe." What you are saying here is that when one learns more about Xianity, one believes it less! That's what I've been saying all along! Maybe there is hope for you, Jenyar!
----------Originally posted by Jenyar
It comes after the parable of the good shepherd in John 10
John (before 90AD) -> Jesus (between 30 and 33AD) -> Prophets Ezekiel and Jeremiah (during the exile to Babylon, ca 598 BC) -> Israel (God's chosen) <- God's creation <- God
You can trace it back as far as you like, but with each step it will only become harder for you to believe.
Jenyar, you've just made an amazing statement! You have finally admitted to the fallacy of Xianity. "You can trace it back as far as you like, but with each step it will only become harder for you to believe." What you are saying here is that when one learns more about Xianity, one believes it less! That's what I've been saying all along! Maybe there is hope for you, Jenyar!
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
So says the person previously taught us what the "Septuagint" meant. For those looking for a better source ...
So, what we have is redacted gospel containing an unverified 2nd hand rendition of a dialogue purported to have occurred over half a century earlier. Pretty damn impressive.
Jesus did say that. In fact, He was himself totally and completely submitted to God:
Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does."
So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.
Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.
(John 5, 8)
We do not glorify Jesus - God does. We thank Jesus, and glorify God for sending Jesus. Jesus is only, I repeat: only our salvation because God has authorized Him to be the means of our salvation. God saved... how? Through Jesus - whom people could see, touch, hear, and identify with - so that nobody has an excuse not to be saved. Our submission to God can't be conditional, it has to be unconditional - if God chose Jesus to be the messiah, we have to accept it. If God chose Mohammed to point to God, people have to accept him. You can't reject the Quran and say you believe in God, because you wouldn't know God if it weren't for the Quran. The messenger might not be the way, but he represents the way. If God sends you a message, He means for you to listen to it. To ignore the messenger is to ignore God.
The more you learn about God, the more you realize how little you know. The more you try to climb to God's level, the more futile your progress will become. But that does not invalidate the knowledge you are allowed to have, or the progress you have made - nor does it make faith weaker; it strengthens it. Don't worry, M*W, my faith is not based on how I got to God, but on how He got to me.
False conclusions, CA. Please substantiate unverified. PS. You may not have noticed, but all references to a source is necessarily "2nd hand". Do you have first-hand knowledge of a tree? No, unless you are a tree. Everything you know about trees have been "redacted" - accumulated, verified and written down, usually more than 50 years ago...
You'll notice that your irreverent quote says: "difficulties for any theory of eyewitness authorship of the gospel in its present form", not "any eyewitness content". Have you ever seen a journalist write his report on the spot? I can assure you reports are never finished without redaction and peer-review. You'll read about the ones that weren't redacted, corroborated and reviewed in the news of the day, but you won't still find them 50 years later in authoritive circles...
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Nice dance - dumb tune. If you have any verification, feel free to supply it.
You're an idiot.
Jenyar-of-the-70-Books calls the New American Bible's Introduction to John "irreverent ". Oh, well ...
This is simply disingenuous rubbish. What action of, or conversation by, 'Jesus' do you claim to have been witnessed by John?
Do you refuse to be held accountable for your own claims? The burden of proof is on you.
Do you make that conclusion from first-hand or second-hand sources? But if you are the resident authority on idiocy, I guess I must be one.
No, I call your quote of it irreverent.
The kind of information that could only be given by eye-witnesses, such as dialogue and actions. But as you have noticed, a great part of it is theological, and theology is developed as study and insight increases. The redactor used eye-witness information, mainly from John (the "disciple whom Jesus loved"), but takes care that it is interpreted as Christian, and not gnostic (who had similar theologies about Jesus). Something that was clear on its own before, might have to be explained in more detail later, as a result of heresies which are built on the original information. There is a possibility that an earlier version of the fourth gospel existed, which was used by Cerinthus (a gnostic). But the version we have now cannot be used to promote heretic gnostic interpretations.
(The Gospel of John)
As I understand it, the term “redaction” is to edit and revise in order to clarify or stress a point that was made from the original author before it is published so the reading audience will understand what is meant. It does not mean to rewrite or alter the phrasing of the passage so that it changes the meaning the original author had intended. The objective of redaction is to clarify the passage before it is published. So when did the implication that “redaction” now means an untrustworthy alteration of the phrases? Please explain, Jenyar or ConsequentAtheist.
Medicine Woman wrote
Medicine Woman wrote
Interesting response. And so what is your god, your bible, and your hell?
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
I'm pleased to see you frequenting Kirby's excellent site. Perhaps you'll learn something, though you've shown no evidence of doing so to date. Nevertheless, it is at least mildly amusing that it you who are now speaking about biblical redactors, though you are clearly clueless as to the implications of such an admission. Oh well, back to your presumptuous little response.
Tell me, Jenyar-of-the-70-Books, is your claim that the apostle John wrote the gospel simple ignorance or do you have some special insight unavailable to biblical historians?
And, from Kirby's site ...
revbill2001
Registered Senior Member
One is all the same
Basically all theist religions believe the same thing, there is a main God and his minions. They are all right or they are all wrong, you have free will to decide for yourself what is right for you. Choose whichever one gives your mind the most peace.
Basically all theist religions believe the same thing, there is a main God and his minions. They are all right or they are all wrong, you have free will to decide for yourself what is right for you. Choose whichever one gives your mind the most peace.
The term has no negative connotations to me. As a publisher, it means to me that the content has been verified and reviewed. CA, evidently, disagrees:
You seem to think it means the disciples and early Christians have worked against themselves, in order to deceive everybody after them as to what really happened.
No, I don't have any information they, or you, don't have. The difference is that you seem to believe they were a lying, deceiving and dishonest bunch (based on what, I'm not sure), while I think they tried their best to bring forth a message that should be understood as it was intended to e understood. And I think that whatever the "redactors" did or did not do, they were using John's testimony (as the text claims) as it was received by them.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Redaction can be for any number of reasons. I assume that, in the majority of cases, the redaction of Biblical text was well-intentioned and often transparent, but intention, particularly in the context of doctrinal disputes, can easily involve efforts to harmonize script with doctrine. Noted examples of this can be seen as far back as Deuteronomy.
I would like to point out that no doctrine would exist without intention. Disputes have the advantage of forcing a decision. Fortunately, throughout the Bible most of the involved opinions/perceptions are presented, and the reader can weigh the evidence himself, trace decisions and options, and formulate/test the golden mean against premises that are very clear and unambiguous. The truth is in there...
Wisdom and understanding cannot be spoonfed. They have to teazed out. My favourite example:
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you will be like him yourself.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.
(Prov.26)
Makes you think twice
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Absolute garbage.
I thought the bible said do this, this, and this, don't do all these things, or you're going to hell.
Mm.. I've never really seen the bible as letting you weigh things, really..everything is set out very strictly, yet it is vauge in the strictness, which just muddles and confuses things.
Mm.. I've never really seen the bible as letting you weigh things, really..everything is set out very strictly, yet it is vauge in the strictness, which just muddles and confuses things.
If you just read the parts that you can associate with, i.e. "laws", you only get half the picture. And then it becomes muddled. Let me give you an example:
In the beginning God creates A, B and C. These are put into context, described using certain words or metaphors, and then we move on.
Now event E happens. It usually shows some kind of relationship with A, B, or C - whether contrasting or reinforcing. And then you read how it is treated. In isolation, that event or decision doesn't fit, and our first impulse is to compare it with more familiar territory: everyday life. And it becomes even more muddled. Do you know why? Because the closest reference to what happens is not what you know now, but the immediate past and future of the event: D and F. What do you have now?
You have the premise: God exists (the Bible never questions or answers "if", if you can't accept the premise at least in principle, go back to square one and try again)...
You have premises A, B and C,
Events D, E and F (call it hypothesis if you want)
and your own reference X, Y and Z (the control)
What happens when connect the dots? You find out where the lines are straight, and where they diverge. And when you read what the prophets said, you see that they tell the people to keep those lines straight, to keep the control sample pure: because God's will is A-Z and anything besides is rebellion: sin.
This is very simplified, but you'll see what I mean. The vagueness is the result of not remembering the premises or taking things out of its context without anything to measure it by. The premises are never vague, but the laws were always insufficient (their strict enforcement is a compensation) and the people were usually analphabetic Things haven't changed much.
In the beginning God creates A, B and C. These are put into context, described using certain words or metaphors, and then we move on.
Now event E happens. It usually shows some kind of relationship with A, B, or C - whether contrasting or reinforcing. And then you read how it is treated. In isolation, that event or decision doesn't fit, and our first impulse is to compare it with more familiar territory: everyday life. And it becomes even more muddled. Do you know why? Because the closest reference to what happens is not what you know now, but the immediate past and future of the event: D and F. What do you have now?
You have the premise: God exists (the Bible never questions or answers "if", if you can't accept the premise at least in principle, go back to square one and try again)...
You have premises A, B and C,
Events D, E and F (call it hypothesis if you want)
and your own reference X, Y and Z (the control)
What happens when connect the dots? You find out where the lines are straight, and where they diverge. And when you read what the prophets said, you see that they tell the people to keep those lines straight, to keep the control sample pure: because God's will is A-Z and anything besides is rebellion: sin.
This is very simplified, but you'll see what I mean. The vagueness is the result of not remembering the premises or taking things out of its context without anything to measure it by. The premises are never vague, but the laws were always insufficient (their strict enforcement is a compensation) and the people were usually analphabetic
Things haven't changed much.