'Rationalising the Bible'

Agrippina's book is published!

Discuss books here.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: 'Rationalising the Bible'

#61  Postby Agrippina » Apr 13, 2016 6:00 am

It seems Volume 2 has been undated now. So it's also available for sale.
A mind without instruction can no more bear fruit than can a field, however fertile, without cultivation. - Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BCE - 43 BCE)
User avatar
Agrippina
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 36924
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: 'Rationalising the Bible'

#62  Postby Agrippina » Apr 13, 2016 6:04 am

I'm working on the New Testament volume. It's difficult for me because Christianity is not easy. That one should be up in a beta version next month (before I go away for a little holiday from the Bible).
A mind without instruction can no more bear fruit than can a field, however fertile, without cultivation. - Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BCE - 43 BCE)
User avatar
Agrippina
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 36924
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: 'Rationalising the Bible'

#63  Postby Agrippina » Apr 14, 2016 9:41 am

I have to put this here. The New Testament is boring. The Old is full of nonsense and misrepresentations, but at least it has exciting stories: war, murder, mayhem, fantasy floods, magical rods, talking animals, and poetry. This one is just four books of the same story being repeated, one book claiming the main characters in the four stories were infused with magical powers, then a pile of letters that pontificate about bullshit and finally someone's magic-mushrooms-triggered imaginings. Just soooooooo boring!
A mind without instruction can no more bear fruit than can a field, however fertile, without cultivation. - Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BCE - 43 BCE)
User avatar
Agrippina
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 36924
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: 'Rationalising the Bible'

#64  Postby aban57 » Apr 14, 2016 9:47 am

Agrippina wrote:I have to put this here. The New Testament is boring. The Old is full of nonsense and misrepresentations, but at least it has exciting stories: war, murder, mayhem, fantasy floods, magical rods, talking animals, and poetry. This one is just four books of the same story being repeated, one book claiming the main characters in the four stories were infused with magical powers, then a pile of letters that pontificate about bullshit and finally someone's magic-mushrooms-triggered imaginings. Just soooooooo boring!


OT is like 1001 nights, NT is like a political essay.
aban57
 
Name: Cindy
Posts: 7490
Age: 42
Female

Country: France
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: 'Rationalising the Bible'

#65  Postby Hobbes Choice » Apr 14, 2016 9:56 am

Agrippina wrote:Cute. Thanks Piper.


Who was Pharoah at the time of the "exodus"?
Why is his name not in the bible, and how can you tell?
User avatar
Hobbes Choice
Banned User
 
Name: Arthur Noni Mauss
Posts: 358

Country: UK
Antarctica (aq)
Print view this post

Re: 'Rationalising the Bible'

#66  Postby Agrippina » Apr 14, 2016 11:10 am

Hobbes Choice wrote:
Agrippina wrote:Cute. Thanks Piper.


Who was Pharoah at the time of the "exodus"?
Why is his name not in the bible, and how can you tell?


Exodus speaks about "Raamses".

Exodus 1:11 They built for Pharaoh store cities, Pithom and Raamses

Between 1307 and 1070, there were nine kings named Ramses, so you tell me, which one?

Pi-Ramesses (/pɪər.ɑːmɛs/); (Pi-Ramesses Aa-nakhtu, meaning "House of Ramesses, Great in Victory")[1] was the new capital built by the Nineteenth Dynasty of Egypt Pharaoh Ramesses II (Ramesses the Great, reigned 1279–1213 BC) at Qantir, near the old site of Avaris. The city had previously served as a summer palace under Seti I (c. 1290–1279 BC), and may have been originally founded by Ramesses I (c. 1292–1290 BC) while he served under Horemheb.

From the Wikipedia page on Pi-Ramesses.

So if they actually were there, and actually lived there, then, given the name of the city, it would have had to have been between 1307 and 1070.

What is a problem is that none of the kings ruled for long enough for Joseph or Moses to have had a continuing relationship with them.

Also that the Egyptians have no records whatsoever of the Jews running their country or building their edifices.
Last edited by Agrippina on Apr 14, 2016 11:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
A mind without instruction can no more bear fruit than can a field, however fertile, without cultivation. - Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BCE - 43 BCE)
User avatar
Agrippina
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 36924
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: 'Rationalising the Bible'

#67  Postby Agrippina » Apr 14, 2016 11:12 am

aban57 wrote:
Agrippina wrote:I have to put this here. The New Testament is boring. The Old is full of nonsense and misrepresentations, but at least it has exciting stories: war, murder, mayhem, fantasy floods, magical rods, talking animals, and poetry. This one is just four books of the same story being repeated, one book claiming the main characters in the four stories were infused with magical powers, then a pile of letters that pontificate about bullshit and finally someone's magic-mushrooms-triggered imaginings. Just soooooooo boring!


OT is like 1001 nights, NT is like a political essay.


Absolutely.
A mind without instruction can no more bear fruit than can a field, however fertile, without cultivation. - Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BCE - 43 BCE)
User avatar
Agrippina
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 36924
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: 'Rationalising the Bible'

#68  Postby Hobbes Choice » Apr 14, 2016 11:23 am

Agrippina wrote:
Hobbes Choice wrote:
Agrippina wrote:Cute. Thanks Piper.


Who was Pharoah at the time of the "exodus"?
Why is his name not in the bible, and how can you tell?


Exodus speaks about "Raamses".

Exodus 1:11 They built for Pharaoh store cities, Pithom and Raamses

Between 1307 and 1070, there were nine kings named Ramses, so you tell me, which one?

Pi-Ramesses (/pɪər.ɑːmɛs/); (Pi-Ramesses Aa-nakhtu, meaning "House of Ramesses, Great in Victory")[1] was the new capital built by the Nineteenth Dynasty of Egypt Pharaoh Ramesses II (Ramesses the Great, reigned 1279–1213 BC) at Qantir, near the old site of Avaris. The city had previously served as a summer palace under Seti I (c. 1290–1279 BC), and may have been originally founded by Ramesses I (c. 1292–1290 BC) while he served under Horemheb.

From the Wikipedia page on Pi-Ramesses.

So if they actually were there, and actually lived there, then, given the name of the city, it would have had to have been between 1307 and 1070.

What is a problem is that none of the kings ruled for long enough for Joseph or Moses to have had a continuing relationship with them.

Also that the Egyptians have no records whatsoever of the Jews running their country or building their edifices.


So it does not bother you that the Jews were not in "Palestine" before this time, when exodus was supposed to have happened?
But a word learned by the people of Judea from their current knowledge of Egypt, anachronistic.

And why did the Egyptian, the people who wrote down just about everything, know knowing about Jews?

The simple fact is that the Jewish religion was new by the Iron Age, and everything up till then is a post hoc justification of their invented religion. circa 800bce.
One thing is for sure, if a group of slaves left Egypt, they were not, at that time, religiously Jewish since no such religion existed.
User avatar
Hobbes Choice
Banned User
 
Name: Arthur Noni Mauss
Posts: 358

Country: UK
Antarctica (aq)
Print view this post

Re: 'Rationalising the Bible'

#69  Postby Agrippina » Apr 14, 2016 12:16 pm

Hobbes Choice wrote:
Agrippina wrote:
Hobbes Choice wrote:
Agrippina wrote:Cute. Thanks Piper.


Who was Pharoah at the time of the "exodus"?
Why is his name not in the bible, and how can you tell?


Exodus speaks about "Raamses".

Exodus 1:11 They built for Pharaoh store cities, Pithom and Raamses

Between 1307 and 1070, there were nine kings named Ramses, so you tell me, which one?

Pi-Ramesses (/pɪər.ɑːmɛs/); (Pi-Ramesses Aa-nakhtu, meaning "House of Ramesses, Great in Victory")[1] was the new capital built by the Nineteenth Dynasty of Egypt Pharaoh Ramesses II (Ramesses the Great, reigned 1279–1213 BC) at Qantir, near the old site of Avaris. The city had previously served as a summer palace under Seti I (c. 1290–1279 BC), and may have been originally founded by Ramesses I (c. 1292–1290 BC) while he served under Horemheb.

From the Wikipedia page on Pi-Ramesses.

So if they actually were there, and actually lived there, then, given the name of the city, it would have had to have been between 1307 and 1070.

What is a problem is that none of the kings ruled for long enough for Joseph or Moses to have had a continuing relationship with them.

Also that the Egyptians have no records whatsoever of the Jews running their country or building their edifices.


So it does not bother you that the Jews were not in "Palestine" before this time, when exodus was supposed to have happened?
But a word learned by the people of Judea from their current knowledge of Egypt, anachronistic.


OK. The Jews were in Palestine, except they didn't identify as a cohesive people. The area of Canaan has been occupied since the end of the last great Ice Age. There is evidence of settlements from as far back as 6000 BCE. So to say that the "Jews were not in Palestine" is incorrect. The Children of Israel was a name invented to identify post-flood people as being directly descended from Abraham through Isaac and Jacob. The claim being that after the flood, ALL people were descended from Noah, but the children of Jacob were selected by God to be his "chosen people". This is the mythology of the Jews. It's not real history.


And why did the Egyptian, the people who wrote down just about everything, know knowing about Jews?

They did know about Canaanites. For some reason, possibly there was a famine in the early second millennium BCE, people arrived in Egypt from Canaan. They were not one family, descended from one parent, with 11 other families, but a group of discrete families who settled there, and they participated in the building operations that happened there.

There is lots of mention of Canaanites in Egyptian history, just no mention of Israelites, or the Children of Israel, or Joseph, or Moses, or that they were slaves, or that they brought plagues down on the Egyptians.

It's also possible that when the Hyksos arrived in the 2nd Intermediate period, the Canaanites went back to their own land taking stories of the lives in Egypt, and that this evolved into their fable of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They invented a religion at some time in the late second millennium BCE, one made up from the stories of their neighbours, and adopting the gods of their close neighbours, decided to make one powerful, monotheistic god, who forbade the worship of other gods.

The simple fact is that the Jewish religion was new by the Iron Age, and everything up till then is a post hoc justification of their invented religion. circa 800bce.

Yes, but I would put the invention of the religion earlier, before David.
One thing is for sure, if a group of slaves left Egypt, they were not, at that time, religiously Jewish since no such religion existed.

Exactly. The religion was invented at the time when they were settling down to a cohesive society under the rule of a king, but it was a small society, nothing as big as the Bible claims, and certainly not the conquerors the Bible claims.

Read: The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. It's a very good explanation of Jewish archaeological history.
A mind without instruction can no more bear fruit than can a field, however fertile, without cultivation. - Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BCE - 43 BCE)
User avatar
Agrippina
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 36924
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: 'Rationalising the Bible'

#70  Postby Agrippina » Apr 15, 2016 6:51 am

About Christianity. I need to talk some theology. If Jesus was God personified, then God was absent from heaven for the thirty-odd years Jesus lived. If he wasn't, then Jesus isn't God. If God made himself into the Holy Spirit in order to impregnate Mary, then he was also absent from heaven at that time, so the Jews were without their god. If God was Jesus, because that's what it claims: God, Jesus and the Holy Spirt are one, not three gods, and not a poly-god, therefore God, as the Jews knew him, no longer exists, because Jesus is God, and God is Jesus, so the Christians have hi-jacked the Jewish god, and they've been praying to the wrong god for 2000 years. It's theft of the Jewish god, making Jesus into God, or God into Jesus, and the Jews have every right to be pissed that the Christians stole their god. Where is my reasoning wrong in this?
A mind without instruction can no more bear fruit than can a field, however fertile, without cultivation. - Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BCE - 43 BCE)
User avatar
Agrippina
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 36924
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: 'Rationalising the Bible'

#71  Postby aban57 » Apr 15, 2016 6:56 am

Agrippina wrote:About Christianity. I need to talk some theology. If Jesus was God personified, then God was absent from heaven for the thirty-odd years Jesus lived. If he wasn't, then Jesus isn't God. If God made himself into the Holy Spirit in order to impregnate Mary, then he was also absent from heaven at that time, so the Jews were without their god. If God was Jesus, because that's what it claims: God, Jesus and the Holy Spirt are one, not three gods, and not a poly-god, therefore God, as the Jews knew him, no longer exists, because Jesus is God, and God is Jesus, so the Christians have hi-jacked the Jewish god, and they've been praying to the wrong god for 2000 years. It's theft of the Jewish god, making Jesus into God, or God into Jesus, and the Jews have every right to be pissed that the Christians stole their god. Where is my reasoning wrong in this?


To be fair, I don't think that last more than a minute, God being such an old guy and all, so his absence was probably unnoticed :)

Other than that, I don't see any flaw in your reasoning :)
aban57
 
Name: Cindy
Posts: 7490
Age: 42
Female

Country: France
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: 'Rationalising the Bible'

#72  Postby Alan B » Apr 15, 2016 8:41 am

Aggi, how are you going to treat the 'Sermon on the Mount'?
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 9999
Age: 85
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: 'Rationalising the Bible'

#73  Postby Agrippina » Apr 15, 2016 10:04 am

Alan B wrote:Aggi, how are you going to treat the 'Sermon on the Mount'?


Here's a first pass at that. Please feel free to critique, I really don't know what I'm talking about with Christianity, I'm mostly winging it, and making observations from the point of view of someone who doesn't understand why people would want to steal another religion's god, and then redesign him into something he isn't while negating his old laws, but cherry-picking the ones they like and then making up nonsense about abortion. God never said a thing about abortion, it's not mentioned in the Bible, in fact god loved killing kids, hell look what he did with the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah. It didn't faze him one bit that millions of babies died there, so why is he supposed to be bothered about individual ones in America?

The Beatitudes in Matthew 5, are a rehashing of what Isaiah said his people being blessed:
Isaiah 19:24-25 In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land: Whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance
The writer is merely reusing texts in the Old Testament, for example, compare:
Psalms 22:26-28 The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the LORD that seek him: your heart shall live for ever. All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee. For the kingdom is the LORD'S: and he is the governor among the nations.
And
Matthew 5: 5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Compare the Beatitudes according to Matthew, and Luke
Matthew 5: 3-12 Blessed are the poor in spirit:for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
Luke 6:20-26 Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh. Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets. But woe unto you that are rich! For ye have received your consolation. Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! For ye shall mourn and weep. Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! For so did their fathers to the false prophets.
The words don’t mean the same thing. If these words were written by eye-witnesses, then they should at least agree.
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
And
Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled.


Are they hungry for righteousness, as in Matthew, or are they just hungry, as in Luke?

ETA. In context, I also refer to this post by Proudfootz. So he gets a mention.
Last edited by Agrippina on Apr 15, 2016 11:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
A mind without instruction can no more bear fruit than can a field, however fertile, without cultivation. - Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BCE - 43 BCE)
User avatar
Agrippina
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 36924
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: 'Rationalising the Bible'

#74  Postby Agrippina » Apr 15, 2016 10:05 am

aban57 wrote:
Agrippina wrote:About Christianity. I need to talk some theology. If Jesus was God personified, then God was absent from heaven for the thirty-odd years Jesus lived. If he wasn't, then Jesus isn't God. If God made himself into the Holy Spirit in order to impregnate Mary, then he was also absent from heaven at that time, so the Jews were without their god. If God was Jesus, because that's what it claims: God, Jesus and the Holy Spirt are one, not three gods, and not a poly-god, therefore God, as the Jews knew him, no longer exists, because Jesus is God, and God is Jesus, so the Christians have hi-jacked the Jewish god, and they've been praying to the wrong god for 2000 years. It's theft of the Jewish god, making Jesus into God, or God into Jesus, and the Jews have every right to be pissed that the Christians stole their god. Where is my reasoning wrong in this?


To be fair, I don't think that last more than a minute, God being such an old guy and all, so his absence was probably unnoticed :)

Other than that, I don't see any flaw in your reasoning :)


:thumbup: Thanks.
A mind without instruction can no more bear fruit than can a field, however fertile, without cultivation. - Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BCE - 43 BCE)
User avatar
Agrippina
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 36924
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: 'Rationalising the Bible'

#75  Postby Agrippina » Apr 15, 2016 10:08 am

While you're looking at what I'm thinking, what do you think of this:

As I read on, I became increasingly convinced that the writers of the Gospels were about as ignorant of the Old Testament Laws and Judaism as it was possible to be. What Jesus was reported to be doing was not in line with the laws of Moses. Without a knowledge of the strict laws of the Old Testament, it is possible that some people heard the story of Jesus, concluded that he’d coming to save them from the hardship of their lives in the first century, believed, then wrote the stories down.
A little knowledge of the law and how severe it was, would have made them aware of how entrenched the laws were.
For example his command about the Sabbath.
Mark 2:23-28 One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?” And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.
Anyone writing about Jesus, as a Jewish man, living in a region that would have stoned him to death for plucking heads of grain, would not have answered the Pharisees in that way. Also claiming to be “lord of the Sabbath” was blasphemy, a crime so awful that there are hundreds of verses about it in both the Old and New Testaments.
Exodus 31:15 Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death
Therefore my opinion is that the people who wrote these stories, were not Jewish. They had very little knowledge of the Old Testament's more than 613 laws, for which the penalty for breaking most of them was stoning. They didn’t understand the rituals, nor the history, so instead of attempting to adopt some of the rituals and laws, they merely brush them aside with “Jesus came to fulfil the law”.
Then there’s the small problem of the unchangeable law:
Matthew 5:18-19 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
When the law was handed down to Moses to be taught to the children of Israel, God did not say that the law is in place until it is fulfilled, he says quite clearly that it cannot be changed. Also if God is omnipotent and omniscient, he knew when he gave that law to Moses, that everything that happened between Moses and Jesus was in their future. It was therefore all pre-planned. My biggest problems with this ministry is that it first of all kills off the “God” of the Old Testament, thereby negating Judaism, and secondly, that it reinvents the same god as a more friendly version. It’s confusing because it makes the whole of the Old Testament, except for the history, invalid. All the laws are no longer valid then. Christians can’t simply cherry-pick ten of them, and the one about homosexuality. That’s wrong. If God is no longer valid, then neither is the law.
Deuteronomy 4:2 You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
Deuteronomy 12:32 Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it. 


I did a search for blasphemy in my Bible app, and when I say "hundreds" there are literally hundreds of verses that speak to blasphemy. In my opinion, if Jesus was a real person, and if he said all the rubbish they claim he did, they would've taken him off to be stoned long before he'd reached the ripe old age he did before the Romans killed him.
A mind without instruction can no more bear fruit than can a field, however fertile, without cultivation. - Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BCE - 43 BCE)
User avatar
Agrippina
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 36924
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: 'Rationalising the Bible'

#76  Postby Agrippina » Apr 15, 2016 11:40 am

I've reworked my piece on the beatitudes a little around the addition of Proudfootz's post. I'll wait to see what comments I get here, then do some more work on it. Then I'll share a summary.
A mind without instruction can no more bear fruit than can a field, however fertile, without cultivation. - Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BCE - 43 BCE)
User avatar
Agrippina
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 36924
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: 'Rationalising the Bible'

#77  Postby Alan B » Apr 15, 2016 12:19 pm

I have often thought that the S of M is not understood by Christians and they really haven't a clue about it's meaning. Many years ago I was given a book by my then wife (a devout Christian and I'm sure she hadn't read the book): "The Sermon on the Mount According to Vedanta" by Swami Prabhavananda. It totally changed my understanding of the S of M. The author goes on about 'God' a lot but if one mentally deletes 'God' from the text, it then becomes more manageable. To illustrate, this is my interpretation of the Lord's Prayer:
The Lord’s Prayer: a guide to meditation?

The REB translation is used for the Lord’s Prayer.

Dictionary definitions:
Pray. "To speak to God or a god aloud or in thought making a request or confession, giving thanks or praise, etc."
Meditate. "To empty the mind of thoughts and fix the attention on one matter."
I thought I would give the above definitions, since some theists seemed to confuse the two as though if one prays, then one is actually meditating. I believe 'Prayer' and 'Meditation' to be two totally different activities with different functions.
How & manner. The dictionary definitions for these two words seem to complement each other but nowhere in the definitions does it suggest that they could be used to imply or be substituted for the verb ‘to say’.

In the KJV of the Bible (translated from the Latin) Jesus said to his disciples 'After this manner pray ye...' and in later translations (from the original Greek) he said 'This is how you should pray...'. (Matt. 6:9-13).
Throughout the Christian world children are taught to say the words of the Lord's Prayer by rote and in many cases devoid of instruction about what the words actually mean. The Lord's Prayer seems to be said universally in the Christian world as a prayer of supplication as though Jesus actually said: "When you pray, these are the words you shall say."

If the assumption is made that Jesus gave the instruction ‘This is how you should meditate’ so that one might reach the same ‘Anointed State’ as himself, that is, become 'a Christ' (since that seemed to be the object of his teaching), then the following interpretation seems reasonable:

“Our Father…
Here he is suggesting that the ‘Spiritually Anointed State’ (that to him was the ‘Spirit of God’), should be looked upon as a ‘Father’, the provider of life, the authority for living, indeed, one might say the meaning of life.

…in heaven”
And he is stating where this ‘Father’ resides, and where it is to be found. In Luke 17:20-21 Jesus specifically states (to the Pharisees) that the ‘Kingdom of God’ is not to be found ‘here or there’ (in a physical place), but is ‘among you’, ‘within you’ or ‘within your grasp’ (depending on the translation).

“May your name be hallowed”:
In meditation, to ‘hallow’ a name or a focussing sound, would be to repeat the name or sound as a mantra. If the phrase is taken literally, it seems reasonable to suggest that it is pointless to try to make a name ‘holy’ if in fact it is already considered to be ‘holy’. Which makes this line pointless if said as a prayer of supplication.

“Your kingdom come”
Here he is making a statement, pure and simple: if you repeat the mantra then you are on the path to being ‘anointed’ with the ‘Spirit of God’. He is addressing an audience in the third person 'Your...'. He is not making a requirement that you should ask for the ‘Kingdom of God’ as you would in a prayer of supplication. I don’t think an attitude of obsequiousness was what Jesus was trying to teach.

“Your will be done on earth as in heaven”
Again, this is a statement pure and simple: when the ‘Spirit of God’ is within you, that is, you have reached the ‘Anointed State’ after repeating the mantra, then your whole life will transformed. All material things will ‘seen’ through the 'eyes' of heaven (‘Spiritual Realisation’). Life will be lived outside the normal materialistic way of living and apart from friends and family.* Another religion might call this 'Nirvana'.
This is not a request for ‘God’ to do something as in a prayer of supplication.

“Give us today our daily bread”
This is an exhortation from Jesus: do not delay! Begin to practice this meditation today and every day! The ‘daily bread’ is a euphemism for essential ‘spiritual’ food – the ‘staff of life’ in a spiritual sense. To think of it as ‘bread’ in the literal sense, as a material food, is meaningless. This is not a request for ‘God’ to do something as in a prayer of supplication.

“Forgive us the wrong we have done, as we have forgiven those who have wronged us”
Another statement by Jesus. It would make more sense rewritten as “The wrong we have done will be forgiven as we now forgive those that have wronged us.” When life is being lived through ‘Spiritual Realisation’, we give up the material way of life and live life in a forgiving spiritual manner.
This is not a request for ‘God’ to do something as in a prayer of supplication.
(I have a problem with the use of ‘wrong’ and ‘wronged’ here. The transliteration from the Greek (http://www.scripture4all.org/) clearly says ‘debt’ and ‘debtors’).

“And do not put us to the test, but save us from the evil one”.
This again is an exhortation from Jesus: ‘Don't be tempted away from the spiritual way of life by the pleasures of material things’.
This is not a request for ‘God’ to do something as in a prayer of supplication.

To say this ‘Lord’s Prayer’ as a prayer of supplication by repeating it ‘parrot fashion’ is futile and sterile and leads to a dullness of mind where an attitude of complacency reigns. Once the prayer is said, Christians seem to believe, then the ‘Duty to God’ has been carried out, no further action is needed. Self-satisfaction rules and nothing else outside of that 'self-satisfaction' has been, or will be, achieved or even required.

It is as though the Lords Prayer is treated as the instructions on a packet of ‘Holy Soup’. The ‘instructions’ are read, without knowledge gained or meaning perceived, and then the packet is put back on the shelf until the next time, ad infinitum. No one bothers to actually carry out the instructions (because they are not understood) and open the packet to make the ‘soup’ (metaphorically speaking). Instead, the instructions are used as a set-piece to be repeated by rote and treated as a means to an assumed ‘promised’ end – that is, an ‘end’ that ‘God’ will provide as an externalised action.

*This gives meaning to Jesus’ statement: “…I have not come to bring peace but a sword…” Meaning to split apart. The ‘sword’ being a metaphor well understood by the peoples of that time under the yoke of Roman occupation. (Mat:34-36)


Slight edit: removal of '('.
Last edited by Alan B on Apr 15, 2016 1:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 9999
Age: 85
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: 'Rationalising the Bible'

#78  Postby Agrippina » Apr 15, 2016 12:26 pm

Alan B, that's brilliant, do you mind if I use it? I'll link to the post, and cite you as "Alan B". :thumbup:
A mind without instruction can no more bear fruit than can a field, however fertile, without cultivation. - Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BCE - 43 BCE)
User avatar
Agrippina
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 36924
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: 'Rationalising the Bible'

#79  Postby Alan B » Apr 15, 2016 12:58 pm

Yep. Go ahead. Wow! Fame at last! :drunk:

I wrote that some time ago just as a 'thought experiment'.

It might be worth getting hold of a copy of that book by the Swami - if it's still in print. It could revise some ideas about the S of M.
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 9999
Age: 85
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: 'Rationalising the Bible'

#80  Postby Agrippina » Apr 15, 2016 1:43 pm

If you think about it, Christians are projecting western values onto eastern ideology. If the whole story of Jesus is true, he was first and foremost a middle easterner having lived with middle eastern values, not western ones. You have to look at the "philosophy" of the New Testament from the point of view of the people who invented Islam. That is unless Christianity was invented by westerners who projected their value system on the religion of the Jewish people. It's a lot more complex than pretty fairy tales about princes worshipping at a manger, and fanciful baptism ceremonies. Look at the story from the point of view of people whose lives were filled with mystical stories, of people being enticed by demons in the desert, of having magical healing powers, and using meditation to reach states of peace and "oneness" with the universe. When you look at it that way, all of it makes sense.

When you look at it from the point of view of a western mind, none of it makes sense. It's all too much like a remake of the Jewish religion, and nothing more.

I've had a look at it on Google Books. It pretty much repeats what Proudfootz said in his post. I'll add a reference to it in a footnote.

I'm a little limited for pages. Every page adds to the cost of the book, so I have to be careful not to dwell too much on one subject. I have earmarked it for reading when I deal with the Gospels in a book dedicated to that subject, then I'll expand on it some more.
Thanks for the information though, it is very useful to make my point above.
A mind without instruction can no more bear fruit than can a field, however fertile, without cultivation. - Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BCE - 43 BCE)
User avatar
Agrippina
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 36924
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Books

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest

cron