The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#301  Postby MrFungus420 » Dec 16, 2013 6:01 am

CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:Note he does not say "I hath sent me", but, "I AM hath sent me". Why is the "I AM" stressed?

Why don't you tell me?


The "I AM" is the being that exists within each of us.


The only "being" that exists in me is me.

CharlieM wrote:We read in Luke 17.21:


Nobody cares.

Haven't you figured it out yet? People that aren't Christian do not accept the Bible as authoritative.

You might as well be quoting Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter.

CharlieM wrote: "for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." This "kingdom of God" is the I AM, and this is why it is written at the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, "Know Thyself".


And you know that this is the reason it is written there HOW?????

In other words, bullshit.
Atheism alone is no more a religion than health is a disease. One may as well argue over which brand of car pedestrians drive.
- AronRa
MrFungus420
 
Posts: 3914

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#302  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Dec 16, 2013 6:18 am

MrFungus420 wrote:

The only "being" that exists in me is me.


Give or take a few billion of our bacterial overlords! :dopey:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 65

Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#303  Postby hackenslash » Dec 16, 2013 6:45 am

No, the bible isn't childish. The stupidity of the bible is extremely adult.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21439
Age: 51
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#304  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 16, 2013 8:41 am

CharlieM wrote:
MrFungus420 wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Yes I do. Again, where are you drawing these conclusions from?


I get inspiration and guidance from peole who are far wiser than I am. You seem to think that the same entity cannot be called by different names in different cultures. Why would you think this?


Nowhere was that said or implied.

Are you having problems with reading comprehension or with being honest?


Well Thomas wrote, "God is called Jaweh of Jehovah, never one of the Hindu names."

Because it's true, he's never called by any of the names of other gods in the bible.
Only the Christian and Hebrew names.

CharlieM wrote:He seems to think that because Jehovah is not given a Hindu name in the Bible this is of some significance.

It is.
Why would one and the same god, give different names and identities to different peoples, thereby causing much strife and division, instead of just using one name and one set of rules?


CharlieM wrote:Can either of you tell me what then is the significance of this?

I've already repeatedly done this and did again just now.

CharlieM wrote:Why would anyone think that Jehovah should be given a Hindu name by the Hebrews?

Because it's the name of god.
My names is Thomas, both here, in India, Jerusalem, all over the world.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30879
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#305  Postby MrFungus420 » Dec 16, 2013 8:41 am

Darwinsbulldog wrote:MrFungus420 wrote:

The only "being" that exists in me is me.


Give or take a few billion of our bacterial overlords! :dopey:


**Grumble**

Fucking pedant.

:lol: :thumbup:
Atheism alone is no more a religion than health is a disease. One may as well argue over which brand of car pedestrians drive.
- AronRa
MrFungus420
 
Posts: 3914

Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#306  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 16, 2013 8:45 am

CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
I know that's what some people claim. Other people claim there are multiple gods, not just one and they have utterable names.


Yes, even the Bible speaks of multiple "Gods". As I have already quoted from Genesis: "Let us make man in our image". Note the use of the plural.

Yet the 10 commandments that you were arguing for just a couple of posts ago state: I am the lord your god. You shall have no other gods before me.
All singular.


Yes, the I AM in us is a unity.

No, it's an individual.
CharlieM wrote:In other words, don't be a slave to your passions and desires, as these are false Gods. Let your God be the I AM.

But the other religions, like Hinduism, which in many cases is polytheistic, urging the belief in multiple seperate gods, not one true god.
So you're silly equivocation is still bullshit.


CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:So which is it? It can't be both. Either there are multiple gods within Christianity or just the one.


How many Gods do you want? From a previous quote I gave, John10.34: Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

The bible claims there is only one true god, other religions, like Hinduism and the Greek pantheon, claim there are multiple, seperate and true gods.


CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:My point is that you presented a religious assertion as if it constituted some kind of fact.
The fact is actually that people can pronounce the name of god just fine. It ain't magic.


Of course they can. But nobody can pronounce the word, 'I' with regard to any being outside of themselves.

Vacuous wibble, nothing more.
CharlieM wrote:It is unutterable to any but the being who utters it.

It really isn't. That's pure shite.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30879
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#307  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 16, 2013 8:47 am

CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:Note he does not say "I hath sent me", but, "I AM hath sent me". Why is the "I AM" stressed?

Why don't you tell me?


The "I AM" is the being that exists within each of us.

How do you know this?

CharlieM wrote: We read in Luke 17.21: "for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." This "kingdom of God" is the I AM, and this is why it is written at the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, "Know Thyself".


Legolas, Lord of the Rings, Two Towers 2:12
"They're taking the hobbits to Isengard!"


Accept Legolas as your one Savior, or you shall burn in Mordor. For one does not simply walk into there.



CharlieM wrote:We believe that we have self-consciousness, but this is a very limited, undeveloped self-consciousness. We have a very long way to go before we can truly say that we know ourselves.

What has that got to do with gods?
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30879
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#308  Postby willhud9 » Dec 16, 2013 6:22 pm

:scratch:

I AM is simply the rough translation of YHWH. Which was the Hebrew God and the way the Hebrew God distinguished him from monotheistic religions. God's name was not so much a name as it was a statement in regards to the other gods of other people. This is one of the reasons they considered YHWH holy and did not speak it and gave God multiple names to fit his character.
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 19332
Age: 29
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#309  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 16, 2013 6:43 pm

willhud9 wrote::scratch:

I AM is simply the rough translation of YHWH. Which was the Hebrew God and the way the Hebrew God distinguished him from monotheistic religions. God's name was not so much a name as it was a statement in regards to the other gods of other people. This is one of the reasons they considered YHWH holy and did not speak it and gave God multiple names to fit his character.

CharlieM interpets that differently though...
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30879
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#310  Postby willhud9 » Dec 16, 2013 6:59 pm

What is there to interpret differently? What context from elsewhere does he bring which holds any candle? He quotes Luke 17 as saying just in you. But that is just incorrect. ἐντός ὑμῶν is literally within (of) you all. We translate that as "within your midst" which in the context of the Kingdom of God in Luke makes perfect sense. If it was going to be a statement of something like within you all ὑμῶν would not have been used. The KJV is not the most accurately translated Bible.

If that was a jab at my comment of different interpretation I also validated my interpretation with scripture and linguistics. Unless that validation can be discredited it has equal weight to others. That is one of the reasons why I never said you or MrFungus were wrong. I simply disagreed with your interpretation.

But it is possible to be wrong in regards to the interpretation of something when the validation for that something is faulty and CharlieM is definitely wrong.
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 19332
Age: 29
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#311  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 16, 2013 7:02 pm

willhud9 wrote:What is there to interpret differently? What context from elsewhere does he bring which holds any candle? He quotes Luke 17 as saying just in you. But that is just incorrect. ἐντός ὑμῶν is literally within (of) you all. We translate that as "within your midst" which in the context of the Kingdom of God in Luke makes perfect sense. If it was going to be a statement of something like within you all ὑμῶν would not have been used. The KJV is not the most accurately translated Bible.

If that was a jab at my comment of different interpretation I also validated my interpretation with scripture and linguistics. Unless that validation can be discredited it has equal weight to others. That is one of the reasons why I never said you or MrFungus were wrong. I simply disagreed with your interpretation.

But it is possible to be wrong in regards to the interpretation of something when the validation for that something is faulty and CharlieM is definitely wrong.

You'll get no argument from me, other than to point out that this once again reveals how susceptible the bible is to personal interpetation.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30879
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#312  Postby willhud9 » Dec 16, 2013 7:08 pm

Yes, and that personal interpretation is fallacious. One of the things I absolutely, positively hated hearing in church was "What does this Bible verse mean to you?"

I don't care what it means to me. I care what it actually means. What is its context? What can we discern from its literary style? Is the diction and syntax normal or is it changed to inflect a different mood? Backing up an interpretation is fine and any piece of literature will have many different possible interpretations. I mean look at reviews of Shakespeare. The symbolism of Hamlet's soliloquy has numerous interpretations all backed up with textual material to make it valid. But if I were to say, "Too be or not to be" was a desire for Hamlet to find God I would be hard pressed to validate that interpretation.
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 19332
Age: 29
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#313  Postby The_Metatron » Dec 16, 2013 7:35 pm

Shakespeare knew when to use to, too, or two.
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 20906
Age: 57
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#314  Postby willhud9 » Dec 16, 2013 7:42 pm

The_Metatron wrote:Shakespeare knew when to use to, too, or two.


I do as well. :( I am just typing fast and I am tired and don't proof read.

No likes a grammar nazi ;)
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 19332
Age: 29
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#315  Postby CharlieM » Dec 16, 2013 9:09 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:Krishna from the Bhagavad Gita:
I am the Self, O Gudakesha, seated in the hearts of all beings! I am the beginning, the middle and also the end of all beings.

This is a common theme, because every god claims to be the creator of everything etc. Otherwise they'd be pretty weak gods.


How about Zeus, the father of the Gods? He wasn't portrayed as being weak although he was not the creator of everything. In the beginning there was Chaos, and out of Chaos came Gaia and Uranus, Mother Earth and the Heavenly Father. Cronus and Rhea are born from Gaia and Uranus and Rhea in turn gives birth to Zeus. Zeus appears after the creation of time, he is not the creator.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:This in no way proves the gods are the same.
Especially not since, for the umpteenth time: all those gods have different creation stories and mythologies, not to mention completely different commandments, practices and moral laws.


The gods don't have different creation stories, people do. Separate cultures have various creation stories with many common themes running through them. As I previously wrote: I'm sure you've heard of the blind men and the elephant, but if you haven't, google it. The stories may vary but the subject remains the same.
CharlieM
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#316  Postby willhud9 » Dec 16, 2013 10:24 pm

You know that quotation from the Hindu scriptures just further solidifies the notion that due to Hellenism Judaism adopted many Eastern philosophies as well as Greek ones into their religion.

Historical explanation > Supernatural one.
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 19332
Age: 29
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Why stevebee is wrong

#317  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Dec 16, 2013 10:46 pm

CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
CharlieM wrote:Krishna from the Bhagavad Gita:
I am the Self, O Gudakesha, seated in the hearts of all beings! I am the beginning, the middle and also the end of all beings.

This is a common theme, because every god claims to be the creator of everything etc. Otherwise they'd be pretty weak gods.


How about Zeus, the father of the Gods?

1. Technically he wasn't the father of the gods, Cronos the Titan was.
2. This is pantheism: multiple unique gods, which destroys your notions that all religions are really about the same god.

CharlieM wrote: He wasn't portrayed as being weak although he was not the creator of everything. In the beginning there was Chaos, and out of Chaos came Gaia and Uranus, Mother Earth and the Heavenly Father. Cronus and Rhea are born from Gaia and Uranus and Rhea in turn gives birth to Zeus. Zeus appears after the creation of time, he is not the creator.

How is that relevant? If anything the Greek mythology evaporates your attempts at equivocation.

CharlieM wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:This in no way proves the gods are the same.
Especially not since, for the umpteenth time: all those gods have different creation stories and mythologies, not to mention completely different commandments, practices and moral laws.


The gods don't have different creation stories, people do.

:picard:
Why didn't the universal god communicate clearly with the people then?



CharlieM wrote: Separate cultures have various creation stories with many common themes running through them.

Also vast differences.
Not to mention the differences in laws and morals.

CharlieM wrote:As I previously wrote: I'm sure you've heard of the blind men and the elephant, but if you haven't, google it. The stories may vary but the subject remains the same.

Willhud already dealt with this bit.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30879
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#318  Postby Agrippina » Dec 17, 2013 5:09 pm

willhud9 wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:Shakespeare knew when to use to, too, or two.


I do as well. :( I am just typing fast and I am tired and don't proof read.

No likes a grammar nazi ;)


:grin: Except this one.
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36689
Age: 109
Female

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

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#319  Postby CharlieM » Dec 18, 2013 4:43 am

In reply to Thomas Eshuis
willhud9 wrote:What is there to interpret differently? What context from elsewhere does he bring which holds any candle? He quotes Luke 17 as saying just in you. But that is just incorrect. ἐντός ὑμῶν is literally within (of) you all.


I quoted Luke as saying, "...the kingdom of God is within you", I don't know where your "just in you" came from. You say "ἐντός ὑμῶν is literally within (of) you all". Where do you get the "all" from?


willhud9 wrote:We translate that as "within your midst" which in the context of the Kingdom of God in Luke makes perfect sense.


ἐντός (entós), which is translated as within, is used only in two places in the New Testament, here in Luke 17.21, and also in Matthew 23 where Jesus is discussing the inside of a cup. If you search for the word midst in the New American Standard Bible it appears 7 times. In every one except Luke 17.21, it appears in ancient Greek as μέσος (mésos).

So Luke consistently uses mésos for "among" or "in the midst of" in all other instances except in 17.21. So your interpretation does not make perfect sense. Why use a word exclusively in this instance when a word was available that has been used consistently throughout the rest of Luke's gospel? Also it is written in Luke 17.20, 17.21

The kingdom of God is not coming with [n]signs to be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’


In other words it is hidden, it cannot be outwardly observed. Well Jesus was in their midst, so they couldn't do anything but observe him.

willhud9 wrote:If it was going to be a statement of something like within you all ὑμῶν would not have been used. The KJV is not the most accurately translated Bible.


Who says its not the most accurately translated Bible? Which translations do you consider to be the more accurate?

willhud9 wrote:If that was a jab at my comment of different interpretation I also validated my interpretation with scripture and linguistics. Unless that validation can be discredited it has equal weight to others. That is one of the reasons why I never said you or MrFungus were wrong. I simply disagreed with your interpretation.

But it is possible to be wrong in regards to the interpretation of something when the validation for that something is faulty and CharlieM is definitely wrong.


Well you haven't demonstrated that I'm definitely wrong. There are many scholars who would agree with my interpretation of the verse in question. Elaine Pagels, author of The Gnostic Gospels would agree with my interpretation. Studying the Nag Hammadi texts she has this to say about self-knowledge and the Kingdom of God:

The Gospel of Truth also expresses this in metaphor: each person must receive 'his own name' - not of course, one's ordinary name, but one's true identity. Those who are 'the sons of interior knowledge' gain the power to speak their own names. The gnostic teacher addresses them:

'then, from the heart that you are the perfect day, and in you dwells the light that does not fail...for you are the understanding that is drawn forth...Be concerned with yourselves; do not be concerned with other things which you have rejected from yourselves.'

So, according to the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus ridiculed those who thought of the 'Kingdom of God' in literal terms, as if it were a specific place: 'If those who lead you say to you, "Look, the Kingdom is in the sky," then the birds will arrive there before you. If they say to you, "It is in the sea," then, he says, the fish will arrive before you. Instead it is a state of self-discovery:

'...rather, the Kingdom is inside you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will realize that you are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves, then you dwell in poverty, and it is you who are that poverty.'

But the disciples mistaking that 'Kingdom' for a future event, persisted in their questioning:

His disciples said to him, 'When will...the new world come?' He said to them, 'What you look forward to has already come, but you do not recognize it'...His disciples said to him, 'When will the Kingdom come?' (Jesus said,) 'It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying "Here it is" or "There it is". Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it.

That 'Kingdom', then, symbolizes a state of transformed consciousness.
CharlieM
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Charlie Morrison
Posts: 1044

Country: UK
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: The 'Childishness' Of The Bible

#320  Postby willhud9 » Dec 18, 2013 5:56 am

CharlieM wrote:In reply to Thomas Eshuis
willhud9 wrote:What is there to interpret differently? What context from elsewhere does he bring which holds any candle? He quotes Luke 17 as saying just in you. But that is just incorrect. ἐντός ὑμῶν is literally within (of) you all.


I quoted Luke as saying, "...the kingdom of God is within you", I don't know where your "just in you" came from. You say "ἐντός ὑμῶν is literally within (of) you all". Where do you get the "all" from?


ὑμῶν is plural "you". It is the equivalent of you all.


willhud9 wrote:We translate that as "within your midst" which in the context of the Kingdom of God in Luke makes perfect sense.


ἐντός (entós), which is translated as within, is used only in two places in the New Testament, here in Luke 17.21, and also in Matthew 23 where Jesus is discussing the inside of a cup. If you search for the word midst in the New American Standard Bible it appears 7 times. In every one except Luke 17.21, it appears in ancient Greek as μέσος (mésos).

So Luke consistently uses mésos for "among" or "in the midst of" in all other instances except in 17.21. So your interpretation does not make perfect sense. Why use a word exclusively in this instance when a word was available that has been used consistently throughout the rest of Luke's gospel? Also it is written in Luke 17.20, 17.21


Because it is not just ἐντός being used. It is being paired with ὑμῶν to make ἐντός ὑμῶν. Greek is not a language which you can simply word for word translate and get a meaning. The use of the adverb in front of the plural pronoun as well as the context of the page simply does not allow for it to be translated accurately as inside.

Furthermore, ἐντός is an adverb and μέσος is an adjective. The role of ἐντός is modifying the role of εστιν.

If Jesus said the "Kingdom of God is within you all" that would make no sense as many of those people Jesus was speaking to were not saved nor had the Holy Spirit been sent or received. Nor would it make sense in light of Luke 17:22-25 in which Jesus talks as himself as the Son of Man has heralding the New Kingdom. But Jesus saying the Kingdom of God is among you makes sense in the context of Luke 17:20-21 as the pharisees are unaware that Jesus is bringing the Kingdom.

The kingdom of God is not coming with [n]signs to be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’


In other words it is hidden, it cannot be outwardly observed. Well Jesus was in their midst, so they couldn't do anything but observe him.


No it is not in other words hidden. You have heard the expression hidden in plain sight? Yeah, second temple eschatology had certain expectations for the coming of the Kingdom. Jesus' responses to the Kingdom idea are radical. It is not going to be expected because the Kingdom is already among you and you are all unaware. It is pretty straightforward.

willhud9 wrote:If it was going to be a statement of something like within you all ὑμῶν would not have been used. The KJV is not the most accurately translated Bible.


Who says its not the most accurately translated Bible? Which translations do you consider to be the more accurate?


All of them have its faults, but no serious Greek scholar holds to the accuracy of the KJV, period. It's poetic for sure, but false. Out of all the Bible translations NASB or HCSB tend to be accurate, but again suffer from their own biases. I tend to read the SBL Greek for a more accurate rendition of what the scripture says.

willhud9 wrote:If that was a jab at my comment of different interpretation I also validated my interpretation with scripture and linguistics. Unless that validation can be discredited it has equal weight to others. That is one of the reasons why I never said you or MrFungus were wrong. I simply disagreed with your interpretation.

But it is possible to be wrong in regards to the interpretation of something when the validation for that something is faulty and CharlieM is definitely wrong.


Well you haven't demonstrated that I'm definitely wrong. There are many scholars who would agree with my interpretation of the verse in question. Elaine Pagels, author of The Gnostic Gospels would agree with my interpretation. Studying the Nag Hammadi texts she has this to say about self-knowledge and the Kingdom of God:

The Gospel of Truth also expresses this in metaphor: each person must receive 'his own name' - not of course, one's ordinary name, but one's true identity. Those who are 'the sons of interior knowledge' gain the power to speak their own names. The gnostic teacher addresses them:

'then, from the heart that you are the perfect day, and in you dwells the light that does not fail...for you are the understanding that is drawn forth...Be concerned with yourselves; do not be concerned with other things which you have rejected from yourselves.'

So, according to the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus ridiculed those who thought of the 'Kingdom of God' in literal terms, as if it were a specific place: 'If those who lead you say to you, "Look, the Kingdom is in the sky," then the birds will arrive there before you. If they say to you, "It is in the sea," then, he says, the fish will arrive before you. Instead it is a state of self-discovery:

'...rather, the Kingdom is inside you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will realize that you are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves, then you dwell in poverty, and it is you who are that poverty.'

But the disciples mistaking that 'Kingdom' for a future event, persisted in their questioning:

His disciples said to him, 'When will...the new world come?' He said to them, 'What you look forward to has already come, but you do not recognize it'...His disciples said to him, 'When will the Kingdom come?' (Jesus said,) 'It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying "Here it is" or "There it is". Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it.

That 'Kingdom', then, symbolizes a state of transformed consciousness.


You used gnosticism to defend your interpretation of Luke 17:21? :scratch:

First of all, we have to look at the Greek. Second of all, we have to look at the early Christian church. We know Gnosticism altered many views of the early church to fit its dogma of knowledge and personal mystery.

The Gospel of Thomas is also the product of a gnostic community within the second century. Using it to defend an interpretation of the synoptic gospels, especially Luke, is flimsy scholarship.

Your interpretation of the text is not supported by the Gospels or the early church. The early Christian church did not believe the Kingdom came until Jesus had gone through the tribulation. Oh look that's what Luke says in Chapter 17:22-25. Paul believed the Kingdom had started, and would reach a climax with Jesus' return to earth. The authors of Matthew, Luke, and John realizing that death was reaching the apostles and church leaders wrote that Jesus' kingdom was already here through him.

But if Jesus was saying the Pharisees were blessed with God's Kingdom being in them then that disqualifies half of the rest of Luke and most of Matthew. So there is contradictions.
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 19332
Age: 29
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest