The Bible II

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Moi621, Feb 26, 2019.

  1. Foxfyre

    Foxfyre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    1,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    According to Matthew, the chief Jewish priests, i.e. high ranking members of the Sanhedrin, were the ones who paid Judas the 30 pieces of silver to betray Jesus. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all mention only Jews who came to arrest Jesus while John 18 says: "So Judas came to the grove guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests…" (NIV) John's account seems the most plausible as the Jews were not given authority by the Roman government to carry out capital punishment so they would need to look to the Romans to do that.

    And it seems pretty clear in all the accounts that Judas didn't describe Jesus at all but led the arresting party to him and pointed him out. As a descendant of Judah, one of the 12 tribes of Israel, Jesus probably looked like any other darker skinned people of the region at that time and his appearance was not necessarily remarkable in any way.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2019
    ToddWB and tecoyah like this.
  2. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    8,218
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    John's reference to a 'detachment of soldiers. is a reference to Jewish Temple Guards which the Romans allowed the Jews to maintain religious discipline. The Romans had no reason to pursue Jesus. He was no threat to them. They were on interested in the militant 'Messiahs' who gathered men around them to oppose and threaten the Roman rule. What you actually believe of the conversation and attitude of Pilate he acknowledged there was no case for Jesus to answer. However to satisfy the Jews - and keep the peace - and because he was a cruel despot in trouble with Rome, he allowed the crucifixion.

    The Jews were respected by Rome for their fierce adherence to their religion. The Romans and some Roman Rulers/ Governers did a great deal to avoid annoying the Jews - unless the Jews defied Roman laws. Or at Passover, when Jews tended to become - er overexcited. That's why the Roman Garrison was backed up with extra soldiers.

    When Herod the Great built house where he could overlook the entrance of the Temple and watch the activity, the Jews built a high wall which obscured the view. Herod ordered them to remove it. They appealed to Caesar and he ordered Herod to leave it there.
    The Jews objected to faces on anything. They considered them idols. Pilate introduced shields into Jerusalem overnight. The Jews were up in arms and Tiberius ordered Pilate to remove them. Cities and various kingdoms minted their own money. Jews objected to Caesars, or anyone's head, on the coins. 'Herod' Antipas minted money without heads to respect the Jews views. Others didn't. Just in case you're wondering - when Jesus held up a coin with Caesars head on it he was not in Antipas kingdom.
    Later Caligula ordered that ALL temples - including Jerusalem's - should have Caesars image on the altars, or associated place. His advisors in Rome advised him to exclude the Temple in Jerusalem. This he did, only to rescind his order later. .
    Several Roman rulers/Governers acted against the Jews and Samaritans for no real reason. They were either rebuked or removed.
    The only reason for the destruction of Jerusalem was the action of the Zealots who forced and coerced many people into the war of 66-70BCE.

    The Romans were flexible on religions. They allowed nations to practise their own - as long as it did not defy Rome. The Romans even adopted some foreign religious beliefs - but never Jewish. Monotheism was not the order of the day.






































    ]
     
    Gelecski7238 and ToddWB like this.
  3. Foxfyre

    Foxfyre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    1,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My understanding of that period of Roman history is that the Romans were not at all tolerant to the point of respecting religious freedom but required all to pay homage to the Roman gods with the exception of the Jews in what was then Palestine, most especially Jerusalem Jews. Because of their large numbers and their intense resistance to worshiping Roman gods, in order to keep the peace and reasonable order, the Jews were exempted from duty to pay homage to Roman gods and were pretty much left alone and were managed through the Roman appointed Jewish king who answered directly to the Roman governor.

    However, the Romans didn't really care what OTHER religions people practiced though so long as they paid proper homage to the Roman gods, paid their taxes, and didn't make trouble for the Romans.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2019
    ToddWB likes this.
  4. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    29,682
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeshua (Jesus) was imaginary. He can be anything you want him to be. Will you kill him, drink his blood, and eat all of his corpse to get eternal life?
     
    tecoyah likes this.
  5. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    29,682
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The fact is that not one person in the past 2,000 years has ever believed in the Jesus character and that includes the writers who wrote the fairy tale.

    The fact is that almost no Christians know what the real Ten Commandments are because they get their religious information from fake movies and lying preachers.
     
  6. Gelecski7238

    Gelecski7238 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,592
    Likes Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Matter is congealed energy. There are many forms and manifestations of energy, including those that we cannot detect with our inherent senses (e.g. much of the electromagnetic spectrum).

    Where is God? The fact that the chicken that has produced an egg can no longer make constructive visits into the egg might be a clue.

    The Creator, God, The Source, is neither male nor female, but both. Lighten your reliance on the anthropomorphic perspective.

    Time is concurrent as well as successive, so some experts say. However, if reality is a probability construct that is reformed from one microsecond to the next, then the wafer of reality you choose to manifest in has your contribution from free will. This world is our kindergarten where we learn from experience and learn from our mistakes.

    It doesn't always work that way. If you were asked to name one, or maybe even two great movies from a particular year, you would have to try making a legitimate selection from available records. You do have power to chose (free will).

    Remember: if a small part of God is in each of us, and it has been there ever since the Creator separated us from Itself and gave us awareness of our individual existence, then this business of being a being with consciousness is probably a highly involved part of the wide scope of cosmic existence.
     
    ToddWB likes this.
  7. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    8,218
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In the UK we have archaeological finds of ancient towns built by the Romans - with English labour of course. In these towns they built small temples to their gods for the Romans to use and also temples to the local deities. for the native inhabitants. The Romans tended to absorb local deities - as with the Greek gods. I agree that taxes were what the Romans really wanted. At one period the main homage required was to the 'Caesar god'. Similar to the Egyptian Pharaoh - who was gods representative on earth and who was expected to maintain - through contacts with the gods = truth, balance, order, harmony, law, morality, and justice. Now where did the Catholics get their idea for the Pope. I wonder. .
     
  8. Foxfyre

    Foxfyre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    1,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Roman Catholic Church being the oldest and most continuous denomination expressing the Christian faith has always appointed leaders, relatively soon to be called bishops, to oversee the organization and administration of the churches. Emperor Constantine in the 4th Century was so impressed with that structure and organization he sought to use the Church and its organizational skills to knit together his somewhat disjointed and fractious Empire. Thus the Church, for the first time came under the protection of and was sanctioned by the State as the favored religion. This allowed Christianity to explode throughout the Roman Empire and from there into the whole world.

    And as the Roman Catholic Church grew and expanded, it was natural that the Bishop of Rome or Pope would be elevated as CEO and chief priest over all. Unfortunately the old maxim that power corrupts kicked in and the office of the pope was frequently corrupt, self serving, and began operating in tandem with the state to increase its power, authority, and influence. And then in the 19th Century, the Pope was afforded greater authority when his official pronouncements of faith were declared to be infallible and therefore binding on all Catholics.

    I hasten to add that there have also been very good, godly popes. And the Roman Catholic Church accomplished some great things and has been instrumental in taking Christian thought into the world despite its uncommendable side such as the Crusades, the Inquisition, its treatment of various indigenous people including the American Indians, the sexual misconduct, etc. The world would nevertheless have been poorer without it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2019
    usfan likes this.
  9. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    29,682
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Jews had tried to kill the Jesus character before but they were incompetent and had to put out a contract to get the job done. And don't forget that Herod chopped off John the Baptist's noggin.
     
  10. ToddWB

    ToddWB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    5,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah . did that Sunday.. communion ya' knw.. it was symbolic , of course.
     
  11. ToddWB

    ToddWB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    5,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "to live life free of it". that's not a half bad summation of the original sin "you can live as gods!"
     
  12. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I see...so you are of the belief that to deny your Church is to Sin?
     
  13. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    8,218
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Original SIN. Man is responsible for his own sin. Original sin through Adam is simply a myth, as is Adam. Adam and Eve. Enkidu and Shamhat. Myths.
     
  14. The Wyrd of Gawd

    The Wyrd of Gawd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Messages:
    29,682
    Likes Received:
    3,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's probably a good idea to read the fine print before gorging yourself like a starving zombie in a zombie movie. You could end up with eternal life only to work the toilet cleaning detail in the golden cube for eternity.
     
    tecoyah likes this.
  15. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    8,218
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The question is Who actually instituted 'Holy Communion'. .

    The Synoptic Gospels all mention the last supper and it's taken that Jesus instituted it. And it is known the writers drew upon each other. On the other hand, John, probably the only gospel writer who may have been in the upper room, does not even mention it. All Jesus does with some bread is dip it into the wine and give it to Judas. Now if we remember that the gospels are written after Pauls death, then Paul is the first institute it in Corinthians. And he claims to have received it from Jesus - not the disciples with whom he was familiar. While a Jew may give his life to save another in danger, he would not sacrifice himself for any other Jews sins. They were not his problem.
     
  16. Foxfyre

    Foxfyre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    1,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    John does not address a lot of material found in the Synoptic Gospels. In addition to no mention of a 'last supper' other than a reference to him washing the Disciples feet, John does not mention, among other things, the virgin birth, the Sermon on the Mount, the Transfiguration, the Great Commission, the Ascension or any of the pre-crucifixion miracles except for the feeding of the 5000. All this suggests that the purpose of the writing was quite different.

    The Synoptics were all most likely written prior to the expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. and focused on the Messiah, God with us, when Jesus walked the Earth among us. Their message was that He was the Son of God who was the fulfillment of prophecy, who performed miracles and great works, and who suffered and died on the Cross for the sins of the world.

    John almost certainly knew of the existence of what we call the Synoptic Gospels, but the Gospel According to John was written well after the expulsion of the Jews and destruction of the Temple. Christians were no longer considered a Jewish sect and did not enjoy the tolerance by the State that the Jews had enjoyed. Being the Church was difficult, and petulant Emperors of Rome were persecuting it in numerous cases. So John was not interested in recapping material contained in the Synoptics but supplemented it, adding material not found in the Synoptics, and focusing on Jesus being God and reassuring and encouraging the Christians with affirmation that Jesus was with us now and forever through all time, and He loves us as the Counselor who leads us into all truth..
     
    ToddWB likes this.
  17. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    8,218
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    e
    Agreed that John, if it was John the disciple, had another purpose, but don't you think that as he was at this supper he would have mentioned Jesus offering his body and blood in the symbols before them. John was a Jew. Here was Jesus saying he was going to do something that was against all Jewish belief.

    We have no dates for the Gospels but were probably between 66 and 100/110 CE. None are named until the 2nd century CE.

    The prophecies used to declare he was the Son of God are all ripped out of context of OT scriptures. Jesus going to Egypt according to Hosea 11 also means that Jesus sacrificed to idols etc. Comparing that with Lukes account, and Jewish ritual, Joseph and Jesus are in Bethlehem and Egypt at the same time. Matthew puts Joseph and family in Bethlehem. What were they doing there. Their home was way north in Nazareth. It's 1000 years after David. Bethlehem and its inhabitants were probably no longer anything to do with David, and almost certainly Joseph would have had no property there. The other prophecies are also torn from OT scripture. Was the mysterious Biblical David actually BORN in Bethlehem, Did he actually exist as the Bible records? It's a wonderfully inventive story, but no actual proof. There was possibly a tribal leader whose tribe conquered other tribes and who became a leader.

    If John, the Jew, knew of the Synoptic Gospels and the birth story, - and as a Jew educated in the Tanakh he must have known the Jewish interpretation of the OT scriptures, then he was complicit in using prophecies he must have known were nothing to do with Jesus.

    The Jews had their own scriptures given them - as one NT writer says - by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. To say they were wrong is to insult the Holy Spirit. If you say they misinterpreted their scriptures given by God, then what is to say that Christianity hasn't misinterpreted their scriptures.
     
  18. Foxfyre

    Foxfyre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    1,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think John was focused on that aspect. He was describing Jesus as the one who would save the world--something the Synoptics didn't hit on all that much if at all--and he was reassuring a Church under fire not to lose faith but hold on to their assurance that Jesus was with them and would be with them for all eternity. The rituals, liturgy, creeds, and how we were 'to do church' was simply not in his wheelhouse of what was most important at the time.
     
    ToddWB likes this.
  19. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    8,218
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But surely you need to know what you're talking about. Jesus did not fit any Messianic prophecies. He is never mentioned in Jewish scriptures. Jesus preached Judaism, lived Judaism, spoke to the Jews. Never did his message include the Gentiles. If the Synoptics are wrong - ie - the birth of Jesus the Jewish preacher = then John is wrong about Jesus. Whoever wrote the Gospels simply put words in Jesus mouth to make him divine. The preacher would never have said 'I am THE Son of God'. He was A son of god - as all Jews believe they are.. The temptation put in by the writers is a nice touch, following the Jewish belief that all men are tested by HaSatan, at God's command, to see the depth of their faith. Job, if real, would have passed and Jesus would have passed. His Baptism, his Jewish actions, his preaching, parables are from the OT. The Beatitudes are from the OT. Jesus uses Moses, Abraham, Jonah as examples because he believed in them. Not because they were real, but because he had been taught from the age of 5 that they were. Rather like the Church has indoctrinated its followers down the centuries.

    Even Pauls teaching is soaked with Greek Philosophy. Taught him, and his pupils, by Gamaliel, side by side with Judaism.

    Judaism is a mixture of various beliefs from other religions.Monotheism from Zoroaster. Rituals/feasts from various places including Egypt. The Ark of the Covenant is an adaptation of an Egyptian 'Ark'. Yahweh fron Ugarit. Christianity follows suit and its beliefs and rituals can be found in Judaism - and even earlier. The Church is celebrating Easter and the rising of its 'god' from the dead. Ancient religions - even before Judaism - watched their god of life descend into the underworld in late autumn and in the spring gathered to welcome it back with the cry 'He is risen'.

    Ecclesiastes 1:1-11. . (V 9)
     
  20. Foxfyre

    Foxfyre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    1,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I respect that this is your interpretation. It won't hold up in the theological world however.
     
  21. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    8,218
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course it won't hold up in the Theological world. That is not concerned with truth. Trace the Christian religion back through Judaism and into history before then.
     
    tecoyah likes this.
  22. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That would uncomfortable and time consuming.....aint gonna happen.
     
  23. ToddWB

    ToddWB Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,219
    Likes Received:
    5,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I disagree, Theology is not so much concerned with the objective truth as it the subjective truth. Many of the Bible stories may be composites, but the objective truth in them is because of observing humanity and human nature. They are archetypes that are profoundly true.
     
  24. Foxfyre

    Foxfyre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    1,655
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have done that spanning four decades now. How we got from 'Abraham' to the present and all the fascinating history in between along with development of Christian thought is perhaps my singlemost subject of interest.
     
    usfan and trevorw2539 like this.
  25. trevorw2539

    trevorw2539 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    8,218
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting. What is 'human nature' to one set of people is not the same to another. All we get from studying the Bible is the Bible point of view. 'Human nature 'to the ancients was the marriage of 13-14-year-olds. It came naturally to both generations. Today we class it as a 'sin'. What is sin to one is natural to another. To many Christians, homosexuality is a sin. Not to those who are of that persuasion. There are many forms of human nature. What is sin? To the Christian, it is transgressing God's laws. To the atheist God's laws are irrelevant. All we have are general moral standards. Human nature varies with culture. The child who stole bread in the old times to feed his brothers and sisters didn't wasn't naturally evil. He did it out of necessity. Some humans are naturally evil, some are brought up that way, some graduate in wrongdoing.
    If you believe in Abraham - was he wrong to marry his half-sister. Today yes. Then no. It was quite natural to do so. The OT stories are not based on man's nature. They are based on the need to show that Jahweh punished those who transgressed his laws and blessed those who kept them.
    To the cannibal, it was natural to eat his enemy when he killed him. We know of cases in extremity when men have eaten the flesh of dead companions to keep alive.

    What is human nature? It varies from culture to culture. From individual to individual.

    Christian Theologians do not even understand Jewish Theology, let alone Jewish nature. If they did Christianity would not exist.

    Human nature
    , fundamental dispositions and traits of humans. Theories about the nature of humankind form a part of every culture. In the West, one traditional question centred on whether humans are naturally selfish and competitive (see Thomas Hobbes; John Locke) or social and altruistic (see Karl Marx; Émile Durkheim). A broader problem is that of determining which ostensibly fundamental human dispositions and traits are natural and which are the result of some form of learning or socialization. Recent research in genetics, evolutionary biology, and cultural anthropology suggests that there is a complex interaction between genetically inherited factors and developmental and social factors. Basic drives shared with other primates are related to food, sex, security, play, and social status. Language use by humans is now generally recognized as genetically enabled, though the acquisition of any specific language also requires appropriate environmental stimuli. Some common behavioral differences between genders (e.g., regarding aggression) also appear to have a genetic basis, as does sexual orientation. See also behaviour genetics; Homo sapiens; personality; philosophical anthropology; sociobiology.
    Britannica

     

Share This Page