We Are All Hindus Now?

[JudyJudyJudy]

Given that your information is coming from a website that is designed to convert Muslims to Christianity, it's not a great surprise that it may differ from the Quran. The verse cited in that quote relates to the issue of whether Jesus is the "son of" God.

Yeah, I noticed that after I posted it. However, what I'm finding on other websites that appear to be Islamic site seems consistent with what I posted. I found for sure that they don't believe that Jesus was crucified.

[Peela]

Peela here is a link more accurately responding to your query. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism I do not personally know anyone who does not approach the Bible in this fashion. Therefore, Peek's use of WE in the sentence," We don't trust the scholars" is not reflective of this Christian nor of many, many people that I am around. I point this out not to be divisive but merely for the sake of stating unequivocally that there is certainly another way to read /interpret God's word well accepted by many faithful persons . Fundamentalism is but one variety of religious thought and not one I wish to be in any way associated with.

 

Ah, thankyou. That is very fascinating. That is more the approach I resonate with.

 

Quote: Higher criticism treats the Bible as a text created by human beings at a particular historical time and for various human motives, in contrast with the treatment of the Bible as the inerrant word of God.

[Donna T.]

His claim is what got him crucified.

 

Exactly. That is exactly the issue.

 

I don't think we all Hindus now, but I think, as a whole, we are going in that direction. I attribute that to several factors.

 

First of all, as time progresses, it's just going to happen. Period. The Bible teaches that a universal end-time religion will arise... a spiritual Tower of Babylon. The universal religion will have wide open arms and will welcome all... except those who have held on to the Word of God.

 

Revelation 20:4 (King James Version)

 

4And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

 

Also, I attribute this progression to the drug culture of the 60's... that really brought in the idea that it's hip to be a universalist. The Jesus of the Bible became a long-haired hippy wearing a t-shirt with a peace sign on it. As if.

 

Also, the Christian churches, in my opinion, from what I read and have observed myself, are not teaching doctrine. False doctrine has come even into the fundamental churches along with elements of mysticism and outright perversion of the Truth of God's Word. The ULTIMATE LIE is that man can eventually become god or a god. That is the lie that Satan told from the beginning. It's the same lie that all cults and false religions are based on. It's the lie of universalism.

 

And, in my opinion, the factor that has most attributed to that tragedy is the explosion of modern Bible translations. Yesterday, my pastor preached on the Deity of Christ and as a part of that sermon, he showed how the modern English Bible versions have watered down and even outright removed the most absolute, dogmatic statements pertaining to the fact that Christ is God. He has always been God. He was God before His incarnation. He is uncreated. He is the third person of the God-head. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit, but not sexually as the cults teach.

 

I'm a fundamentalist. I believe in Coexistence. I believe everyone has a right to believe whatever they want to believe and to do so without overbearing coersion. However, I wish all could hear the gospel of Christ, as recorded in the historical Christian New Testament, which is the Textus Receptus and not the other Westcott texts, which underlie the modern English translations.

 

I think if the Christian churches would repent and return to the Greek New Testament, we would see people receive the Lord and come to love Him for who he really is. God of God.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I could have googled but I wondered if Christians generally knew, off the top of their heads. Apparently not.

Well, I think some of us misunderstood the question. I will rest easy that you got your answer. Rest assured that many Christians including myself are skeptics who don't easily go for blind faith and have researched this extensively, but most of us didn't memorize it, :001_huh: and have the information in books rather than digital form. (I was NAKING earlier, thus could not access the books. :D)

[Peek a Boo]

I could have googled but I wondered if Christians generally knew, off the top of their heads. Apparently not.

 

 

 

then you assume quite a bit erroneously and completely misunderstood the lack of response after someone pointed you in the right direction.

Thankyou, that was what I was looking for. Now I am a little more educated, without having to wade through pages of documentation.

I am aware though that there are many documents that werent included in the Bible that conflict with what is in the Bible. It is a very interesting area of study, obviously.

 

I find your reasoning disingenuous at best. Wikipedia is hardly "pages" of documentation and usually designed to be a quick read that is easy to navigate.

 

Ah, thankyou. That is very fascinating. That is more the approach I resonate with.

 

Quote: Higher criticism treats the Bible as a text created by human beings at a particular historical time and for various human motives, in contrast with the treatment of the Bible as the inerrant word of God.

 

well DUH! didn't see THAT coming, lol.

[Peek a Boo]

Well, I think some of us misunderstood the question.

i didn't misunderstand the question.

Didn't misunderstand the intent of the question either.

[Peek a Boo]

Actually, I do feel that it's worse when the meanness is done in the name of God. If it's simply done by a religious person, but not in the name of God, then that's different.

 

how is it different???:confused:

 

are you saying it's less mean?? less kind?

[Lovedtodeath]

i didn't misunderstand the question.

Didn't misunderstand the intent of the question either.

I thought she was wanting much more information than what was supplied. I was wrong.

 

I would also like to know: How many other ancient historical documents from the time of Christ written by eyewitnesses survive in the original form today?

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I was raised with the Jehovah's Witness beliefs of the 60s and 70s, and it's hard to shake that. I'm glad they are becoming more open-minded in general.

It's still hard for some Witnesses to shake that. ;) DH and I were married in 1994 (My parents were Witnesses, his were not. We were both babtized) and decided to leave the Witnesses shortly after. We searched around and found nothing better and went back after 6 years. I have done a lot of searching.

[KingM]

I would also like to know: How many other ancient historical documents from the time of Christ written by eyewitnesses survive in the original form today?

 

Zillions. It was the height of the Roman Empire. There are thousands of surviving documents.

[Lovedtodeath]

Zillions. It was the height of the Roman Empire. There are thousands of surviving documents.

Thanks for answering me. Really? From Rome or from throughout the empire?

 

Logic stage ancient history is sure to be fun!

[JudyJudyJudy]

Originally Posted by JudyJudyJudy

Actually, I do feel that it's worse when the meanness is done in the name of God. If it's simply done by a religious person, but not in the name of God, then that's different.

 

how is it different???:confused:

 

are you saying it's less mean?? less kind?

If a person is mean "just because," I don't blame his religion. However, if he is mean in the name of his religion or because of his religion, I find that to be worse primarily because it is more dangerous. Being cruel in the name of religion is why Christians (and other religions) have such an ugly past.

[Lovedtodeath]

Sorry... OT: Judy, how do you put a quote inside a quote like that?

[JudyJudyJudy]

It's still hard for some Witnesses to shake that. ;) DH and I were married in 1994 (My parents were Witnesses, his were not. We were both babtized) and decided to leave the Witnesses shortly after. We searched around and found nothing better and went back after 6 years. I have done a lot of searching.

I've done a lot of searching, too, but I ended up atheist. :p I remember questioning as a young child, but the "fear of God" was put into me, so I was afraid of my questions and was afraid because I didn't believe. It was truly a relief for me when I could finally admit to myself that I simply didn't believe any of it (in any religion, not just in Christianity). I do like some of the teachings of Buddha, though.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Sorry... OT: Judy, how do you put a quote inside a quote like that?

I had to cheat and copy and paste and then put the quote thingies around the part I pasted.

[Donna T.]

"As C.S. Lewis and a number of other experts have concluded, there are only two religions in the world: Christianity and Hinduism (paganism). One teaches that we are separated from the one true God by sin, and God became a man to die for our sins; the other declares that men are not separated from God, but that each person has within himself the power to overcome evil and thus to become God or atleast a god. Hinduism or paganism embraces and absorbs everything except biblical Christianity, which is its only genuine rival. ..... In the Baghavad-Gita, Krishna declares that he comes forth to save the righteous and to condemn the sinners. This is just the opposite of the biblical Christ, who came to save sinners. The great complaint of paganism and all secret occult societies is that whereas one must be "worthy" to join them, Christianity deliberately embraces the unworthy." Ed Decker & Dave Hunt, The God Makers

 

I'm sad that so many are hearing the message that Christianity is not "for" the unworthy! It is! True Biblical Christianity teaches a Christ that died for us even while we were yet sinners. He did not come to bring the righteous to repentence, but sinners. If you are not a Christian and you feel that Christians are judging you for being a sinner or not being worthy, well, that is tragic. Because the Christ of the Bible died for sinners. Anyone who follows, teaches and preaches the Christ of the Bible knows he himself is a sinner, and he would be in risk of God's judgment should he judge you. There is one that judges, but it's not a man. Christians are to judge themselves and other Christians, but not unbelievers.

[Jugglin'5]

Zillions. It was the height of the Roman Empire. There are thousands of surviving documents.

 

Zillions of original manuscripts?

[Desert Rat]

Well said.

[KingM]

Originally Posted by KingM

Zillions. It was the height of the Roman Empire. There are thousands of surviving documents.

 

Zillions of original manuscripts?

 

Ah, sorry, I misread this a little. There are thousands of original source documents, but the Romans wrote on papyrus, which didn't always hold up well, so these are copies, but it's pretty good information.

 

FWIW, I think we have some pretty good surviving Biblical stuff, too. Enough, at least, to compare against later documents and see that yes, this has been transmitted accurately. The only problem is the first few decades after the death of Jesus. By the early to middle decades of the second century, however, it was coming very close to the form we see today.

[Jugglin'5]

[/i]

 

 

 

Ah, sorry, I misread this a little. There are thousands of original source documents, but the Romans wrote on papyrus, which didn't always hold up well, so these are copies, but it's pretty good information.

 

FWIW, I think we have some pretty good surviving Biblical stuff, too. Enough, at least, to compare against later documents and see that yes, this has been transmitted accurately. The only problem is the first few decades after the death of Jesus. By the early to middle decades of the second century, however, it was coming very close to the form we see today.

 

I thought that most Classical Roman works were preserved mostly in the form of medieval manuscripts. Some very late medieval. The earliest I know of in an important work is a 4th century Vergil (haven't studied this in a while). The point being, if you want to use the word zillions, it would be more appropriately applied to NT manuscripts - there were a vast number of them, in many languages, with very minor textual variants, and many very early. It is remarkable really.

[Dirtroad]

You don't find it to be even sadder when the cruelness is done in the name of God?

 

Not in the case of children b/c I think they are just looking for what it is that is DIFFERENT and they attack. I think is mean regardless of what "supposed excuse it is". They mock, they parrot, the are childish & irresponsible.

 

But with an adult, I think it gets tougher. They know better or should have learned that they need to hold their tongue in anger or if they are just wanting to throw in one more verbal punch. ..... ESPECIALLY if they are a professed Believer in Christ & go on to let the mouth rule them. My hope is they will repent & go back to the person that they have offended and ask forgiveness. (pride will stop many from doing this though).

 

Some unbelievers claiming christianity will invoke quotes or phrases like "going to hell" as a power play or manipulation... as a threat. They may be as ignorant of the severity of that behavior as the child.... but they honestly have NO excuse b/c time is a teacher & they have had time to learn to behave correctly... can't say they didn't know.

 

To misuse scripture or use God as a threat over someone... is horrible... but I think the adults use it more "specifically or directly" than children.

 

We are all sinners.... but misusing God's name & his teachings is asking for trouble.:001_huh: I goof up enough and dont' even realize it... I pray I don't stumble into this area often.

[Dirtroad]

Originally Posted by Peela

Then I suggest perhaps you have been living in a box, considering what Christians have done, the millions they have killed, the whole races they have annihilated, in the name of their religion.

 

 

 

Well, you dont have to look far, but I am sure there are many Native American tribes. There are many Australian Aboriginal tribes, and the whole of the Tasmanian race.

I am not saying it is Christian behaviour or pointing the finger. Its just very ignorant to think that other races commit terrible atrocities "in the name of their religion" without acknowledging the many that people who have called themselves Christian have done and continue to do.

I am not picking on Christians in this...it is just fact.

 

It is better to say the greedy, racially superior minded, ignorant PEOPLE committed these genocides or horrible attrocities. To put them on the footsteps of CHRIST is not really honest or fair. That is like the reference someone made to the KLAN problems in some areas of this country or the witch trails... they were not about relegion (but some text want to say it is so)... they were about superstition, jealousy, and pure hatred.

 

And several races of people suffered at the hands of evolutionary theories that said several of these indigenous tribes were the LINK between man & ape. They were inferior b/c of skull shape or coloring or had never developed the bow & arrow (in case of aborigines). That is not relegion (not in the normal sense but some to view science as a relegion of sorts)... but science at work here. Those great perceptive racisit minds sure did miss the genius of the Boom A Rang in their evaluations didn't they.

 

Some Indians adapted Christianity and still today have influence in that area. Some Christrian Native Americans are still helping their poorest brothers & sisters on modern reservations in the western USA. Some Indians never excepted it. However, most Indians (of the East) were not killed b/c of relegion but b/c of broken agreements on BOTH sides ... and b/c of greed of new settlers, etc.

 

To really analyze history, you can't lay it a the feet of the CHRIST's church unless they specifically said GO DO IT. (it did happen, but not anywhere NEAR the level of generalities tossed our so loosely in these type discussions) (the fact that such abuses were ordered by the church is another arguement for not having 1 fallen man as head of a church by many denominational groups today)

 

With all this said.... it is RIGHT to say that it IS NOT the Christian culture to do such things... and it is often the CHRISTIANS who come forth & stop the atrocities (eg. Salem witch trials & underground railroad). Other relegions do not have this happening and are still today in the same state of barbaric mistreatment of their own people... thousands of years later with NO progress or lessons learned. There truly is a difference in this regard.

 

But remember... man is evil and sinful. Until Christ returns again, we will keep witnessing such atrocities... and they are heartbreaking. HIS church should stand up for the victims, neglected, weak, and dominated (including the unborn).

 

But... I do notice here & in society, that many are quick to forgive any relegion for its atrocities or sins... but NOT CHRISTIANITY.... even if other Christians are the first & (at times) only ones who came to the rescue to STOP the atrocity.

Edited August 18, 2009 by Dirtroad

[Dirtroad]

I've done a lot of searching, too, but I ended up atheist. :p I remember questioning as a young child, but the "fear of God" was put into me, so I was afraid of my questions and was afraid because I didn't believe. It was truly a relief for me when I could finally admit to myself that I simply didn't believe any of it (in any religion, not just in Christianity). I do like some of the teachings of Buddha, though.

 

Judy, I was an unbeliever & rather boistrous about it from my teens until I was almost 30. I have been there but was brought onto a different path & I wish I could articulate it better. I can remember thinking most preachers were full of hot air & I still dont' like the "sweating & spitting" type... as a descriptive. My Dad used to say they had soft hands from no work & ate fried chicken off someone in the congregation every Sunday. He thought they were in it for easy work & after my grandfather died.... I just thought it was a scam & God was a tool used by others for their benefit. Completely rejected it all.

 

However, I had 4 friends in grad school who TRULY walked the talk. We chatted & I never was hit in the face with it. They did not give me the usual "outs" b/c I couldnt' point to their hypocrisy or abuses of others. The most intelligent & humble of these became my DH many years later (what a gift from God it was!)

 

However, my true "conversion" came when I actually sat down (alone) and read the 4 Gospels at the beginning of the New Testament. No people telling me what to think... no one threatening me with hell like a jail sentence.... no one TELLING me anything. Just me reading the accounts & teachings of CHRIST... and the plan, will, and love of God.

 

I have never been the same. I stumble, I doubt, and I do wrong. However, I will never be the same & grow a little along in my walk with Christ. I just read the books & couldn't deny anymore.

[keptwoman]

It is better to say the greedy, racially superior minded, ignorant PEOPLE committed these genocides or horrible attrocities. To put them on the footsteps of CHRIST is not really honest or fair. That is like the reference someone made to the KLAN problems in some areas of this country or the witch trails... they were not about relegion (but some text want to say it is so)... they were about superstition, jealousy, and pure hatred.

 

OK first of all, I've read and read and read. I have to point out to you: it's relIgion not relEgion. I figure since you are still mis-spelling no one else has mentioned it.

 

I agree with you that many atrocities have been commited in the NAME of Christianity and they go against the true Christian religion. You seem to be differentiating that from atrocities committed by other religions in the NAME of that religion. There is no difference, both are committed by fringe radicals who misrepresent their religions teachings to do these things.

 

You also seem to think that societies can't be civilised without the morals of Christianity. I suspect there are many many people on the board here who manage to live civilised and moral lives without needing the Bible to base their morals on.

[Peela]

[/i]

 

The only problem is the first few decades after the death of Jesus. By the early to middle decades of the second century, however, it was coming very close to the form we see today.

 

Yes, this is my understanding. Those few decades mean a lot to me...but I am also surprised, and consider myself newly educated, to find out that it was relatively unchanged since then. Well, there must be some changes because different churches have different versions and believe different things. But I find it interesting that it was translated and rewritten and scholars say little was changed over long periods of time.

[Peela]

But... I do notice here & in society, that many are quick to forgive any relegion for its atrocities or sins... but NOT CHRISTIANITY.... even if other Christians are the first & (at times) only ones who came to the rescue to STOP the atrocity.

 

That hasnt happened here at all. There has only arisen the desire to defend the "other religions" against those such as yourself who see Christianity with such rose coloured glasses compared to those "other religions". It simply a response to perceived ignorance (which I think you continue with in the rest of your post but I dont feel like pulling it apart).

Peace to you...there is no way we are going to agree, and you have not shared any examples to back up your points so I will leave you with your own thoughts and beliefs.

[Peela]

"As C.S. Lewis and a number of other experts have concluded, there are only two religions in the world: Christianity and Hinduism (paganism). One teaches that we are separated from the one true God by sin, and God became a man to die for our sins; the other declares that men are not separated from God, but that each person has within himself the power to overcome evil and thus to become God or atleast a god. Hinduism or paganism embraces and absorbs everything except biblical Christianity, which is its only genuine rival. ..... In the Baghavad-Gita, Krishna declares that he comes forth to save the righteous and to condemn the sinners. This is just the opposite of the biblical Christ, who came to save sinners. The great complaint of paganism and all secret occult societies is that whereas one must be "worthy" to join them, Christianity deliberately embraces the unworthy." Ed Decker & Dave Hunt, The God Makers

 

 

The above quote is nonsense to me, as I am familiar with "paganism", some "secret cults" and Hinduism, and the author of the quote obviously isn't, or else he has an agenda and so isn't especially interested in the truth.

In other words, dont believe everything you read.

 

Here is a poem by Rumi, a famous beloved Sufi poet and mystic. Does it sound like he feels you must be worthy first?

 

 

Come, come, whoever you are.

Wanderer, Worshipper, lover of leaving.

It doesn’t matter.

Ours is not a caravan of despair.

Come, even if you have broken your vow a hundred times.

Come, yet again, come, come.

– Rumi

 

Here is an apparently more accurate translation:

"Return (in repentance), return! Whatever

you are, return! Even if you are an unbeliever or a Magian or an

idol worshipper, return! This court of ours is not a court of despair.

Even if you have broken your repentance a hundred times,

return!"]

[Jugglin'5]

Yes, this is my understanding. Those few decades mean a lot to me...but I am also surprised, and consider myself newly educated, to find out that it was relatively unchanged since then. Well, there must be some changes because different churches have different versions and believe different things. But I find it interesting that it was translated and rewritten and scholars say little was changed over long periods of time.

 

Different churches don't really have different Bibles ( at last with regard to traditional Trinitarian Christians), with the exception of the Apocrypha. I read the same Bible as the Methodists, Baptists, Anglicans, Orthodox and Catholics. Some churches do have the Apocrypha in their Bibles (books that most Protestants don't believe to be inspired), but other than that, we're all reading the same book of Genesis or Gospel of Matthew. We might use a different English translation, but these translations are all based more or less on a text with extremely minor variants. Most English translations are based on a critical text anyway (though personally I think the church should stick to the Majority Text). The reason different churches believe different things really has nothing to do with the text of the Bible - they are all working from the same one (more or less). It has to do with legitimate difference over what the text actually means, or in the case of some denoms, do we even believe it all? Conservatives tend to believe the book of Genesis to be authoritative, while liberals don't, but they both have the same book. It can also have to do with the role that tradition plays in interpretation.

 

 

It is interesting to me, though, that so much is made of the "late date" of the NT (fragment of John c.125), when the earliest manuscript we have of Tacitus is 1000 or so, same with Livy and Caesar. Nobody sems to doubt that they lived.

[Lovedtodeath]

It is interesting to me' date=' though, that so much is made of the "late date" of the NT (fragment of John c.125), when the earliest manuscript we have of Tacitus is 1000 or so, same with Livy and Caesar. Nobody sems to doubt that they lived.[/quote'] She is not saying that she doubts that Jesus lived. What she doubts are the details of the story.

 

What I look at is that it is remarkable that it has remained unchanged from such an early date until now... why would it have changed in that short period before then?

[KingM]

What I look at is that it is remarkable that it has remained unchanged from such an early date until now... why would it have changed in that short period before then?

 

A couple of things come to mind. First, was there a scribe sitting at the Sermon on the Mount or at the Last Supper, or did someone write it down 20-30 years later when it became clear that they needed to get this stuff away from being just an orally told story?

 

Second, what about the dozens of fragments and even "Gospels" that were later determined to be inauthentic and didn't make it into the canon? I think it's likely that there are bits of true stuff in these apocryphal writings and bits of invented or misremembered stuff in the canon.

[Jugglin'5]

She is not saying that she doubts that Jesus lived. What she doubts are the details of the story.

 

What I look at is that it is remarkable that it has remained unchanged from such an early date until now... why would it have changed in that short period before then?

 

 

I know she didn't say it. I wasn't implying that she did. I rather enjoy engaging Peela about this because she doesn't set out to be offensive or dismissive.

[Jugglin'5]

A couple of things come to mind. First, was there a scribe sitting at the Sermon on the Mount or at the Last Supper, or did someone write it down 20-30 years later when it became clear that they needed to get this stuff away from being just an orally told story?

 

Second, what about the dozens of fragments and even "Gospels" that were later determined to be inauthentic and didn't make it into the canon? I think it's likely that there are bits of true stuff in these apocryphal writings and bits of invented or misremembered stuff in the canon.

 

Or, most of the eyewitnesses of Jesus' talks and sermons knew they were false, so they were never copied much. The Gnostics were battling the orthodox (using this in a generic way) from almost the very beginning. I guess you have to choose which you think most likely.

[KingM]

Or' date=' most of the eyewitnesses of Jesus' talks and sermons knew they were false, so they were never copied much. The Gnostics were battling the orthodox (using this in a generic way) from almost the very beginning. I guess you have to choose which you think most likely.[/quote']

 

I think it most likely Jesus's followers were devout and very anxious to record what they heard and what they thought was most important, so I take the Gospels as being pretty close to what Jesus actually taught/claimed. tHE gOSPEL OF John appears to be somewhat less reliable than the Synoptic Gospels.

 

Since the Gnostic tradition took until the middle of the 2nd Century to fully develop, which is even later than John, I would place this as even less reliable, although again, I suspect there were some authentic teachings/traditions that came down even that late.

 

What I'd really love to get my hands on would be the Q Document, which is an earlier gospel used as a basis for Matthew and Luke, but no longer exists. If a copy of this ever appeared, a la, the Dead Sea Scrolls, it would be one of the greatest discoveries ever.

[Lovedtodeath]

It is a vicious cycle really. Somehow I came to have the faith that God inspired the writings in my Bible. With that faith, these types of questions and speculations are no longer a concern of mine.

 

I have heard of the Q document. I chalk it up to mere speculation and nothing more. Even if it did exist, I do not see the point in finding it. Many writings in the Bible mention other documents, such as records of kings, wars and lineage, but we do not have the records as they were not inspired by God.

[Michelle in MO]

Yes, this is my understanding. Those few decades mean a lot to me...but I am also surprised, and consider myself newly educated, to find out that it was relatively unchanged since then. Well, there must be some changes because different churches have different versions and believe different things. But I find it interesting that it was translated and rewritten and scholars say little was changed over long periods of time.

 

shouldn't matter, however. No other ancient documents have as many copies as the books from both the New and Old Testaments.

 

By comparison, some of the earliest copies of Homer's Odyssey or Iliad were copied down literally centuries after he wrote them, yet their authenticity has rarely been questioned. Oral tradition is little understood in our culture, but in ancient cultures it was used quite a lot and with a great deal of accuracy. The rhythm and meter of some of these ancient documents, as well as mnemonic devices such as locī, assisted greatly with memorization, and, in the classical tradition, memorization or memōria was a rhetorical tool that was employed by poets, orators, and other rhetoricians to convey their message accurately. Students today don't do nearly the amount of memory work that ancient students were expected to master. Thus, with modern eyes we tend to look askance at this oral tradition, whereas its history is actually quite lengthy in terms of years and quite accurate as well.

[KingM]

By comparison, some of the earliest copies of Homer's Odyssey or Iliad were copied down literally centuries after he wrote them, yet their authenticity has rarely been questioned.

 

Who questions the historical authenticity of the Bible? I mean, you might debate whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, but nobody, so far as I know, questions that ~1900 years ago someone wrote down that he did.

 

And to be fair, there is no arguing about details from the Odyssey because nobody is basing their life on whether the guy's name was Ulysses or Odysseus, whereas people place very great importance over what the name Jehovah does or doesn't mean.

[Lovedtodeath]

And to be fair, there is no arguing about details from the Odyssey because nobody is basing their life on whether the guy's name was Ulysses or Odysseus, whereas people place very great importance over what the name Jehovah does or doesn't mean.

:iagree:Yes, I almost wrote about the Iliad earlier (did I?) but really, it doesn't compare, as most people don't even consider it history (but rather myth) and certainly aren't basing their whole life on their belief in it being accurate.

[Michelle in MO]

Who questions the historical authenticity of the Bible? I mean, you might debate whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, but nobody, so far as I know, questions that ~1900 years ago someone wrote down that he did.

 

And to be fair, there is no arguing about details from the Odyssey because nobody is basing their life on whether the guy's name was Ulysses or Odysseus, whereas people place very great importance over what the name Jehovah does or doesn't mean.

 

Peela's very honest (and fairly common) question, which was:

 

Yes, this is my understanding. Those few decades mean a lot to me...but I am also surprised, and consider myself newly educated, to find out that it was relatively unchanged since then. Well, there must be some changes because different churches have different versions and believe different things. But I find it interesting that it was translated and rewritten and scholars say little was changed over long periods of time.

 

I never implied that she was questioning the historical authenticity of the Bible. In fact, Peela has always been very polite and is asking some very good, honest questions. I was responding to the fact that some people (not Peela) question NT Scriptures, for example, because some were recorded a few decades after the death of Christ.

 

:iagree:Yes, I almost wrote about the Iliad earlier (did I?) but really, it doesn't compare, as most people don't even consider it history (but rather myth) and certainly aren't basing their whole life on their belief in it being accurate.

 

I made the point about the Iliad and the Odyssey to illustrate that the oral tradition was considered to be very accurate and thus the early Scriptures were not necessarily inaccurate. The truth claims of these Scriptures are, of course, up for each individual to decide. Nevertheless, many early Christians were willing to bet their lives upon those claims---before they were ever recorded.

[Peek a Boo]

If a person is mean "just because," I don't blame his religion. However, if he is mean in the name of his religion or because of his religion, I find that to be worse primarily because it is more dangerous. Being cruel in the name of religion is why Christians (and other religions) have such an ugly past.

 

 

Bad people have ugly pasts, regardless religion.

 

i don't find mean behavior to be bad or better based on religion or lack thereof.

i do agree it can cause people to base their view of a religion incorrectly on the adherents. Ghandi was a prime example of that.

[Peek a Boo]

I agree with you that many atrocities have been commited in the NAME of Christianity and they go against the true Christian religion. You seem to be differentiating that from atrocities committed by other religions in the NAME of that religion. There is no difference, both are committed by fringe radicals who misrepresent their religions teachings to do these things.

 

heads up - there are plenty of religions out there that actually do involve and praise human sacrifice, cannibalism, head hunting, slavery, fertility rites, and war.

You also seem to think that societies can't be civilised without the morals of Christianity. I suspect there are many many people on the board here who manage to live civilised and moral lives without needing the Bible to base their morals on.

 

Which simply underscores that Christianity is NOT about being a good moral person. I find it fascinating how so many people keep equating Christianity w/ some social justice theology.

[Tea Time]

"As C.S. Lewis and a number of other experts have concluded, there are only two religions in the world: Christianity and Hinduism (paganism). One teaches that we are separated from the one true God by sin, and God became a man to die for our sins; the other declares that men are not separated from God, but that each person has within himself the power to overcome evil and thus to become God or atleast a god. Hinduism or paganism embraces and absorbs everything except biblical Christianity, which is its only genuine rival. ..... In the Baghavad-Gita, Krishna declares that he comes forth to save the righteous and to condemn the sinners. This is just the opposite of the biblical Christ, who came to save sinners. The great complaint of paganism and all secret occult societies is that whereas one must be "worthy" to join them, Christianity deliberately embraces the unworthy." Ed Decker & Dave Hunt, The God Makers

 

 

The above quote is nonsense to me, as I am familiar with "paganism", some "secret cults" and Hinduism, and the author of the quote obviously isn't, or else he has an agenda and so isn't especially interested in the truth.

In other words, dont believe everything you read.

 

 

I just want to say for clarification, it is much better to read C.S. Lewis directly. I hate it when excellent authors are quoted or summarized by others in a highly misleading or just over-simplified way. Read the original source. Just had to throw that in there because it would be easy to miss this important distinction. Sorry if that was obvious to everyone. :tongue_smilie:

[Peek a Boo]

I have heard of the Q document. I chalk it up to mere speculation and nothing more.

 

well, that's because.... it IS mere speculation, lol!

 

a postulated lost textual source

 

a theoretical collection of Jesus' sayings

 

This hypothetical lost text

 

The Q document, if it did exist, has since been lost

[Peek a Boo]

The above quote is nonsense to me, as I am familiar with ____________________, and the author of the quote obviously isn't, or else he has an agenda and so isn't especially interested in the truth.

In other words, dont believe everything you read.

 

 

sounds like we're seeing a lot of that these days.

[sleepymommy]

"As C.S. Lewis and a number of other experts have concluded, there are only two religions in the world: Christianity and Hinduism (paganism). One teaches that we are separated from the one true God by sin, and God became a man to die for our sins; the other declares that men are not separated from God, but that each person has within himself the power to overcome evil and thus to become God or atleast a god. Hinduism or paganism embraces and absorbs everything except biblical Christianity, which is its only genuine rival. ..... In the Baghavad-Gita, Krishna declares that he comes forth to save the righteous and to condemn the sinners. This is just the opposite of the biblical Christ, who came to save sinners. The great complaint of paganism and all secret occult societies is that whereas one must be "worthy" to join them, Christianity deliberately embraces the unworthy." Ed Decker & Dave Hunt, The God Makers

 

I'm sad that so many are hearing the message that Christianity is not "for" the unworthy! It is! True Biblical Christianity teaches a Christ that died for us even while we were yet sinners. He did not come to bring the righteous to repentence, but sinners. If you are not a Christian and you feel that Christians are judging you for being a sinner or not being worthy, well, that is tragic. Because the Christ of the Bible died for sinners. Anyone who follows, teaches and preaches the Christ of the Bible knows he himself is a sinner, and he would be in risk of God's judgment should he judge you. There is one that judges, but it's not a man. Christians are to judge themselves and other Christians, but not unbelievers.

 

I'm guessing that you must be clearly misinformed, Hinduism is not Paganism.

 

Also, man cannot become God in Hinduism. There is one God- Eternal Truth.

 

If you want to quote anything on Hindu beliefs, please do not use use biased information with Christian agenda, nor from those who have not studied Hinduism in depth.

 

I would feel sorry for any child treating unkindly by his classmates, regardless of the topic... I don't feel that it's extra-egregious when it comes from religious people-- do you?

 

There is a difference in making fun of superficial things, such as clothes, hair style, etc. But certain things should not be brushed off as childhood "meanness" What if someone is made fun of b/c of their race or skin color? It's not socially acceptable, even for kids. Parents are generally called, not so if someone's shoes got made fun of.

 

Religion is beyond superficial and should be regarded as so, not just as regular old meanness. Making fun of race and religion tend to be learned things from intolerant people. Kids have the ability to decide if they think purple sneakers look funny, they don't just come up with racial or religious slurs.

[Peek a Boo]

There is a difference in making fun of superficial things, such as clothes, hair style, etc. But certain things should not be brushed off as childhood "meanness" What if someone is made fun of b/c of their race or skin color? It's not socially acceptable, even for kids. Parents are generally called, not so if someone's shoes got made fun of.

 

Religion is beyond superficial and should be regarded as so, not just as regular old meanness. Making fun of race and religion tend to be learned things from intolerant people. Kids have the ability to decide if they think purple sneakers look funny, they don't just come up with racial or religious slurs.

 

I disagree: I think genuine meanness is rarely superficial. It may be about superficial items or deeper issues, but there's a distinct difference between kids noticing an article of clothing is different vs berating others with insults about said item. And yes, it is generally learned from mean people, whether they be racist, religious, or neither. racism and religion don't hold monopolies on a person's ability to be pure mean.

[Jugglin'5]

 

There is a difference in making fun of superficial things, such as clothes, hair style, etc. But certain things should not be brushed off as childhood "meanness" What if someone is made fun of b/c of their race or skin color? It's not socially acceptable, even for kids. Parents are generally called, not so if someone's shoes got made fun of.

 

Religion is beyond superficial and should be regarded as so, not just as regular old meanness. Making fun of race and religion tend to be learned things from intolerant people. Kids have the ability to decide if they think purple sneakers look funny, they don't just come up with racial or religious slurs.

 

 

When I was a child I was much more hurt by comments about my clothes or appreance than about my religion or parents' politics. Commenst about a child's appearance can stay with them forever.

[Dirtroad]

OK first of all, I've read and read and read. I have to point out to you: it's relIgion not relEgion. I figure since you are still mis-spelling no one else has mentioned it.

 

I agree with you that many atrocities have been commited in the NAME of Christianity and they go against the true Christian religion. You seem to be differentiating that from atrocities committed by other religions in the NAME of that religion. There is no difference, both are committed by fringe radicals who misrepresent their religions teachings to do these things.

 

You also seem to think that societies can't be civilised without the morals of Christianity. I suspect there are many many people on the board here who manage to live civilised and moral lives without needing the Bible to base their morals on.

 

Thank you for noticing my errors. I am sure it was very essential to mention my lack of perfection. I never point out such errors b/c I know we are all typing quickly & can even post distracted. I am also more concerned about being careful with my wording b/c I don't want to be hurtful or abusive to anyone... than if I make an error in spelling. But... I am a mistake maker!

 

I did NOT mean to say there were many attrocities committed in the name of christianity by the order of the church & because of the teachings of the church, etc... I think HISTORIANS do this. I think they were committed by people who lived in a christian community or era or maybe even attended church (ref. Salem Mobs). I think VERY FEW were ordered by the church & were official church actions (atleast not since the end of medieval era)... I refered to not needing a church to be led by ONE man to prevent these horrific things. Even today, we see the clerical leaders & high religious authorities in several religions ordering & supporting very horrific acts. I think there are differences.... not just renegades but true religious warriors to conquer or convert or kill. You haven't seen this type of barbarism in Christianity in hundreds of years... and outside the much feared Inquisition, you have seen even less.

 

I do think Christianity brought TREMENDOUS civility to nations. You may not be a Christian and may absolutely LOATHE them (not you directly, just you in general context). However, if you live in the USA, CANADA, SWEDEN, GERMANY, ENGLAND, etc... you benefit greatly from the rules of law & rights/wrongs established by influences of Christians. (NOT perfect nations... but the best nations in the world to live in have been blessed by the teachings of Christ... even when his followers are flawed & fail).

 

There are nice, gently natured people born all over the world. However, they may live in a society of suppression, abuses, little value to human life, no rights to the women or girls, on & on..... they may be nice, but they live in a society that is very wicked & oppressive (to the point of death). IT takes more than a few NICE people with big hearts to make a nation act with compassion and civility. I think this is the best gift to the world (in a non relegious sense) that we have from Christianity.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Dirtroad

[keptwoman]

Thank you for noticing my errors. I am sure it was very essential to mention my lack of perfection. I never point out such errors b/c I know we are all typing quickly & can even post distracted. I am also more concerned about being careful with my wording b/c I don't want to be hurtful or abusive to anyone... than if I make an error in spelling. But... I am a mistake maker!

I apologise if you took offence. I just treated you as I would wish to be treated, and that is if I was making a repeated spelling error, that someone would point it out to me. So if you see them in my posts, feel free.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I apologise if you took offence. I just treated you as I would wish to be treated, and that is if I was making a repeated spelling error, that someone would point it out to me. So if you see them in my posts, feel free.

I would want a PM about it, rather than on the forum. Just so you know. I am sure I make plenty of them. I can't figure out how to use the spellcheck and I am usually in a big hurry. :001_smile:

[keptwoman]

Good point.