The Bible

[markpierre]

Isn't it understood yet that the Bible is a collection of texts written by many mostly unknown authors, and assembled into it's particular content for political reasons? What do we care what crazy things the ancient Hebrews did to maintain their social structure.
Really, the things Christian culture are horrified the most about in Muslim Fundamentalism are instructions from those same texts, written by that same God. That's a bit weird. The Muslims then are bad for following the instructions they were given?

They say the instructions came from God too, so are they wrong about the same thing Christianity is right about? They didn't get the word about 'Jesus is God' stuff, but strangely Islam regards him as a prophet so they must have had an idea of what he was going on about. I don't think they borrow names, or that any Joe is considered a prophet when they haven't acknowledged what he had to say.

Oh...its all in interpretation?

The fact that one has to admit that one 'knows' that God is the author of every word of the Bible, because that was what one was told, isn't a very compelling reason to take it seriously, or for a Fundamental Christian to even agree with himself.
If it wasn't God, that behavior would be considered criminally sociopathic, and we have a system of addressing things like that called the Justice System because we consider it abhorrent. We even think we go to war over it.

Might it be possible that instruction books like Deuteronomy which were written to enforce codes, might have been influenced slightly by the guys who were enforcing the codes? You shouldn't have to think too hard.

[modwiz]

Posted by markpierre (here)
Isn't it understood yet that the Bible is a collection of texts written by many mostly unknown authors, and assembled into it's particular content for political reasons? What do we care what crazy things the ancient Hebrews did to maintain their social structure.
Really, the things Christian culture are horrified the most about in Muslim Fundamentalism are instructions from those same texts, written by that same God. That's a bit weird. The Muslims then are bad for following the instructions they were given?

They say the instructions came from God too, so are they wrong about the same thing Christianity is right about? They didn't get the word about 'Jesus is God' stuff, but strangely Islam regards him as a prophet so they must have had an idea of what he was going on about. I don't think they borrow names, or that any Joe is considered a prophet when they haven't acknowledged what he had to say.

Oh...its all in interpretation?

The fact that one has to admit that one 'knows' that God is the author of every word of the Bible, because that was what one was told, isn't a very compelling reason to take it seriously, or for a Fundamental Christian to even agree with himself.
If it wasn't God, that behavior would be considered criminally sociopathic, and we have a system of addressing things like that called the Justice System because we consider it abhorrent. We even think we go to war over it.

Might it be possible that instruction books like Deuteronomy which were written to enforce codes, might have been influenced slightly by the guys who were enforcing the codes? You shouldn't have to think too hard.

Given much of what has been revealed about the bible and its composition as well as the archaeology by the Israelis themselves this thread is better put into the channeling section with disclaimers about veracity. The Iliad was composed with more sincerity than the OT. The only sincerity there is the writers sincerely hoped their tribe would believe it. It was not written for Gentile consumption.

Red has his friends and they play nice together. For those of us uncomfortable with the infallibility of the bible, with the OT being particularly removed from even historicity, coming to this thread is a rabbit hole.

Redezra is a really good guy though. One of the reasons I tend to show some respect and not wander in here, too much. No need for me to be disrespectful.

[Beren]

I will again return to realization of WHO wrote Old testament.

Men did and those men lived in very primitive surroundings. Those men often if not always used euphemism "God" from their writings so they claimed that God did that ...

Israel in those days was a bit more educated than rest of the nations and if you remember that some of them held human sacrifices you will glance how they all were in darkness.
The very need for writen laws as do not sleep with your mother or her sister or whatever weird kind of laws (weird for us now) were simply written then in order to tell people to not do that stuff for obviously some were doing it.

And Israelites (men) wrote those laws not God ... God allowed that because of free will but didn't spare them from consequences.
Then Christ came and abolished the law fulfilling prophecies and enacting a law of Love.

SO when you look from nowadays point of view you see how many things were absurd then but that was the moment in time and their primitivity.

So why then call God a sadist and whomever when it was not God who wrote that and wanted that.
MEN wanted that actions and declared that GOD wanted it (so to sound more powerful to their peers)...

But anyways people will ignore all this and continue doing what they please... but will always reap what they sow.

[Unified Serenity]

Posted by Beren (here)
Then Christ came and abolished the law fulfilling prophecies and enacting a law of Love.

I respectfully disagree about abolishing the law for the New Covenent was the Law written upon our minds and hearts. Messiah certainly dealt with those who put the fence around the law, and the abuse of the law rather than walking in the spirit of the law, but if one walks in a heart transformed and loves God and their fellow man with all their heart, mind, and soul one will walk as Yeshua did, and fulfilll equally as he left the example.

Peace,

Serenity

[Beren]

Posted by Unified Serenity (here)

Posted by Beren (here)
Then Christ came and abolished the law fulfilling prophecies and enacting a law of Love.

I respectfully disagree about abolishing the law for the New Covenent was the Law written upon our minds and hearts. Messiah certainly dealt with those who put the fence around the law, and the abuse of the law rather than walking in the spirit of the law, but if one walks in a heart transformed and loves God and their fellow man with all their heart, mind, and soul one will walk as Yeshua did, and fulfilll equally as he left the example.

Peace,

Serenity

I agree for that was my aim here . The situation is dichotomy by nature;
1. you are not under any law
2. you are under every law

Key is level of conscience. When high you understand that only law is Love and you act accordingly ,meaning that you will never do anything to break free will choices of others and you will never hurt anyone and above all you will do as much as you can for good of all.

When in low conscience you would need a strict rule ,otherwise you will become anarchistic ,thus destructible for all.
Hence laws ye shall not kill or steal or whatever because in your low level you don't understand that killing is a negative thing and can bring consequences.

Law or cause and effect is a permanent one in all existence for always one cause has its own effect.

So for example Caananites when sacrificing children they though they do good to their deity , so God needed to tell them that it is not good to kill your child .
Such action will bring consequences in a form of vengeance or destruction by others (humans are all invisibly connected ).

Today we see us moralizing was God sadistic or not when we don't fully grasp their level of conscience .

You can see how hard was for early Christians to accept that they do not need to do sacrifices anymore, that they do not need strict lists of laws ,regulations...
Can you fathom how much more laws and regulation we have today???

Is US government more nobler when bringing democracy to the world now than Israelites destroying their neighbors then?
When they were bombing Serbia in 1999 they called the action Angle of mercy or similar though they killed thousands f innocents along with children and pregnant women.
While people in the west thought that it was in democracy sake and freeing the country from dictator and were blessing the action ,innocent were slaughtered here.

Similar the case then.

But finish line is this - it was all men deeds - not God's.

Should I call God now sadistic and women hater?
Should I call it bloodthirsty one?

Nope - it's all men who did it.

[panopticon]

G'day Beren,

I agree with you.
My previous post was directed to RedeZra (in regards to the statement 'the will of god - the father') who takes the christian bible, in its entirety, as the "inspired word of god" and presents a literal interpretation of the texts.
From this perspective, as god is unchanging and the OT text is the word of god who is infallible, then all that is presented in the OT can (indeed some believe should) be accepted as 'the will of god - the father'. There are numerous sections in the NT where it can be interpreted as saying that the OT laws must be obeyed.

As Modwiz rightly pointed out when the bible is viewed in this way it is really old channelled material and should be placed in the channelled section at Avalon. This is especially true of the NT section known as "revelations" which really is channelled material as we know it today.

Personally I have nothing against the OT sections of the bible. I view it as a cultural artefact which shows how a courageous group of people in antiquity created a distinct culture that separated them from those around them. The military practices in Deuteronomy that I mentioned were, and some often still are, common military practice. The way rape was viewed is also typical. It is in the interpretation of it all as being "sanctioned by god" that it gets in sticky water. When it is invoked as a call to war (as in Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia etc) and as an excuse for abuse and/or discrimination, that I have a problem.

The danger, from my perspective, is when a literal interpretation is not questioned it gives permission for some to behave in an unacceptable way. I am not trying to "have a go" at RedeZra, though that could be the interpretation of my questioning, rather to show an alternative perspective of the bible that many fundamentalists are rightly uncomfortable with.

Why do I bother?
I have a personal connection with some people who have been abused because of a literal interpretation of the texts in question and the bible in general.
By way of example: a woman who was repeatedly raped by her husband and her church told her that it was acceptable because of the OT bible. Every time she went to leave, her husband would bring her the bible and tell her to read it. She was told she was worthless, would go to hell and burn in flames for all eternity so stayed in those conditions for almost twenty years.

That is why I bother to question a literal interpretation of the bible as I view it as dangerous at a personal, cultural, social and spiritual level.
Kind Regards,
Panopticon

[Jeffrey]

My man Swami Vivekananda said it best!

"In the world, religion is the only science where there is no surety, because it is not taught as a science of experience... All science has its particular methods; so has the science of religion. It has more methods also, because it has more material to work upon. The human mind is not homogeneous like the external world. According to the different nature, there must be different methods ... through all minds runs a unity, and there is a science which may be applied to all. This science of religion is based on the analysis of the human soul. It has no creed. No one form of religion will do for all. Each is a pearl on a string. We must be particular above all else to find individuality in each. No man is born to any religion; he has a religion in his own soul. Any system which seeks to destroy individuality is in the long run disastrous. Each life has a current running through it, and this current will eventually take it to God. The end and aim of all religions is to realise God."

[RedeZra]

Posted by panopticon (here)
G'day RedeZra,

Thank you for the response.

Posted by RedeZra (here)
it is not my view but the Old Testament law given by God of the OT to the Israelites
Christ gave the world the New Testament and so the Old Testament is over and done with

The above posts in this thread were not to do with the christian Jesus but to do with your initial statement 'the Will of God - the Father' and nothing else. The male personified god of the OT is the same one as in the NT (ie unchanging) and this is shown in Malachi 3:6 (UKJV) 'For I am the LORD, I change not'.

Are you saying that the 10 commandments are now defunct?


hi Panopticon


the Ten Commandments are not defunct as they show us where we sin and why we will be Judged

the New Testament promises Mercy and an escape from just Judgement from breaking the Commandments simply by Repentance to Jesus Christ who nailed all sins to the Cross and so died for us


the New Testament is between God and all the people in all the lands

Christ did not do away with the Ten Commandments

but He did away with the Promised Land the scattering of the Israelites the Second Temple with it's animal sin sacrifice to God

as He nailed all the sins of the world past present and future til the Cross until He returns

that is why even the most vile sinner can find mercy and salvation in Jesus Christ when the sinner truly repents and turns to Jesus for trust


if Jesus is not God then the Bible is a joke

the Will of the Father is known by the Word of the Christ and these Two operate in unison together with the Holy spirit


the details in Deuteronomy about the code of conduct regarding the conquest of Caanan or the Promised Land is over and done with

it is old history almost as old as the Old Testament between God and the Israelites


the Caanan culture from Ham son of Noah was trespassing as that strip of land was allotted to Shem son of Noah and his descendants

besides the Caanan culture was a fertility cult into child sacrifice


i guess God did not like the Caanan culture and i don't think God like our culture



in Luke 10:25-28 there is a certain lawyer who asks Jesus "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"

and Jesus answer with a question "What is written in the law? What is your reading?"

and the lawyer says "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself."

and Christ responds "You have answered rightly; do this and you will live."


this is the very first commandment in the Ten Commandments

and so it is of extreme importance that human beings attach themselves to God in heartfelt love and mindful contemplation so that God can guide and guard us

we have free will so God is not going to force His will on us

and if we don't cultivate a relationship with God then we are pretty much on our own

Posted by panopticon (here)
Again I ask, what are your thoughts on forcing a woman to stay with, and marry, her rapist?

i don't condone that and i'm not God


women's liberation has come a long way since Old Testament times and some say the movement has been sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation

anyway it is awkward to view old history through our modern glasses as it was another time another context another culture

[Beren]

Posted by panopticon (here)
G'day Beren,

I agree with you.
My previous post was directed to RedeZra (in regards to the statement 'the will of god - the father') who takes the christian bible, in its entirety, as the "inspired word of god" and presents a literal interpretation of the texts.
From this perspective, as god is unchanging and the OT text is the word of god who is infallible, then all that is presented in the OT can (indeed some believe should) be accepted as 'the will of god - the father'. There are numerous sections in the NT where it can be interpreted as saying that the OT laws must be obeyed.

As Modwiz rightly pointed out when the bible is viewed in this way it is really old channelled material and should be placed in the channelled section at Avalon. This is especially true of the NT section known as "revelations" which really is channelled material as we know it today.

Personally I have nothing against the OT sections of the bible. I view it as a cultural artefact which shows how a courageous group of people in antiquity created a distinct culture that separated them from those around them. The military practices in Deuteronomy that I mentioned were, and some often still are, common military practice. The way rape was viewed is also typical. It is in the interpretation of it all as being "sanctioned by god" that it gets in sticky water. When it is invoked as a call to war (as in Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia etc) and as an excuse for abuse and/or discrimination, that I have a problem.

The danger, from my perspective, is when a literal interpretation is not questioned it gives permission for some to behave in an unacceptable way. I am not trying to "have a go" at RedeZra, though that could be the interpretation of my questioning, rather to show an alternative perspective of the bible that many fundamentalists are rightly uncomfortable with.

Why do I bother?
I have a personal connection with some people who have been abused because of a literal interpretation of the texts in question and the bible in general.
By way of example: a woman who was repeatedly raped by her husband and her church told her that it was acceptable because of the OT bible. Every time she went to leave, her husband would bring her the bible and tell her to read it. She was told she was worthless, would go to hell and burn in flames for all eternity so stayed in those conditions for almost twenty years.

That is why I bother to question a literal interpretation of the bible as I view it as dangerous at a personal, cultural, social and spiritual level.
Kind Regards,
Panopticon

Hello Panopticon,

Thank you for reply which is great!
Here you actually nailed the thing of what I am speaking about.
Abuse.

Men abuse everything ,from women to written texts and finally they try to abuse God by attaching him their deeds.
You know God is the one who ordered this or that!!!

Now women follow the case though slightly less aggressive than men.

That woman who was molested in the name of God and Bible was actually molested by people who taught her husband that.

Here's the verse from old testament which says pretty much all regarding men in those days:

Micah 3

This is what the Lord says about the prophets who mislead my people:
When they have something to eat, they say, “All is well!”
But they declare a holy war against those who don’t feed them.
6That is why you will have nights without visions.
You will have darkness without revelations.
The sun will set on the prophets,
and the day will turn dark for them.
7Seers[a] will be put to shame.
Those who practice witchcraft will be disgraced.
All of them will cover their faces, because God won’t answer them.


and more;



9Listen to this, you leaders of the descendants of Jacob,
you rulers of the nation of Israel.
You despise justice and pervert everything that is right.
10You build Zion on bloodshed and Jerusalem on wickedness.
11Your leaders exchange justice for bribes.
Your priests teach for a price.
Your prophets tell the future for money.
But they rely on the Lord when they say,
“After all, the Lord is with us.
Nothing bad will happen to us.”See ? They claim that God told them to act as they did...

Zechariah 7

4Then the Lord of Armies spoke his word to me. He said, 5“Tell all the people of the land and the priests, ‘When you fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh months these past 70 years, did you really do it for me? 6When you ate and drank, didn’t you do it to benefit yourselves?

then;

8Then the Lord spoke his word to Zechariah. He said, 9“This is what the Lord of Armies says: Administer real justice, and be compassionate and kind to each other. 10Don’t oppress widows, orphans, foreigners, and poor people. And don’t even think of doing evil to each other.
11“But people refused to pay attention. They shrugged their shoulders at me and shut their ears so that they couldn’t hear.


and finally in new testament:


Matthew 7

21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the person who does what my Father in heaven wants. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name? Didn’t we force out demons and do many miracles by the power and authority of your name?’ 23Then I will tell them publicly, ‘I’ve never known you. Get away from me, you evil people.’


It is very clear what Christ said and what God said in old testament but people were always choosing too add more to it and adding more they influenced history on the bloody way.And it is sad that God's word is being abused by same fanatics and fundamentalists today as in the past.God doesn't "know" them and Christ doesn't "know" them.
They are abusers or truth, falsifiers,extortioners of innocents and murderers. Liars.

Their end will be according to their sowing ,their beginnings.
They can change for good but they have to choose that.

They will not be spared of their actions- no escape for God is Love and God can not be mocked. What you sow -that you reap.

Here lies Christ's liberation act - freeing people from religious slavery and people who abuse power.
By returning the power to the people Christ liberated us.

So whomever today tries to enslave people by any kind of religion or teaching or group or organization is following a spirit of fear that has numbed us down.

[panopticon]

G'day All,

In this thread we have been slowly working our way through the Christian Bible.
I thought it best to have a little recap of some highlights for anyone who is interested and I wanted to present a personal caveat.

Many people have a deeply personal attachment to their belief and I do respect that.
There are many reasons for some adopting a literal interpretation of religious texts (including, for example, cultural indoctrination and/or group identity resulting in an unquestioning belief) and while I don't necessarily agree with their positions I do try to respect their personal beliefs.

There are also those who have "found God" due to a personal crisis that had them look for something to supply a reason for, or way out of, their misfortune (for example, a death, a near death experience, cancer, addictions [notably AA and NA]). I have no problem at all with this and advise anyone who is a "believer" for these reasons to no longer read my posts in this thread as I have known many good people who have "turned their lives around" through Christianity (as well as many other religious paths) and I am not trying to hinder them in this. Rather, I am presenting an alternate view of the Bible and its contents for others who might come across this thread.

I repeat:
################
If you have a belief in God because of a personal crisis then do not read my posts in this thread.
I am not posting to cause further problems to individuals who have had misfortunes in their lives.
################

To recap some highlights (as I understand them and not intended as a slight against any individuals particular opinion so please try to not take offence) in no particular level of importance:

• The Old Testament (OT) Bible has been presented in this thread as the true, inspired and unaltered word of God that is a true history of the people of Israel. An alternative perspective as been presented that it is a collection of texts that encompasses archaic laws, historically inaccurate representations of the "two kingdoms" and a "god" who sanctioned genocide, mass murder, rape and slavery and that the texts were the "word of men" used to create social cohesion and cultural identity for a newly formed group of courageous persons in antiquity as a response to their extremely difficult life circumstances;
• An agreement was reached that it appears the depiction of God in the OT sanctioned certain acts in antiquity, due to the surrounding cultural and social conditions, and that this only applied to the "Israelites" of that time;
• A four hour documentary series presented detailed archaeological evidence that the biblical accounts were historically inaccurate. This evidence was questioned because a three minute section may have been in error in relation to whether camels had been used in "the two kingdoms" at the time;
• The persistent use of circular reasoning has been noted as a technique used by some to justify their position;
• A number of detailed papers presented showed that the OT biblical history is largely exaggerated and inaccurate. The motives behind these articles have been questioned by some;
• Noah's flood was presented as occurring roughly 2400 BCE. An alternate position held that this was largely inaccurate (though a documented "localised flooding event" has been mentioned as a possible reason for the various cross cultural "deluge stories" in the region);
• Noah's Ark was presented as having been found in Turkey. An alternate position posited that it was one of many similar natural formations in the area and that the "ark shaped formation" had been presented as "Noah's Ark" because of its dimensions, while the other similarly shaped formations had been ignored because they were too small;
• A consensus position was reached that we are not able to understand the cultures of antiquity through the lens of modern Western culture;
• Finally it has been repeatedly stated, and agreed upon, that many people/groups interpret the Bible for their own ends and are selective in their quotations to justify their otherwise untenable positions.

There have been many other positions presented in this thread and they are all equally valid from the position of the various posters and no insult was intended if a position was not included in this summary.
I admit having been selective in my summation, for the sake of brevity, and limited them to mostly those that I have participated in.

It appears that there are roughly four positions held, not unusual for this form of discussion, in relation to the contents of the Christian Bible:

• It is the inspired word of God and an accurate depiction of historical events;
• It is neither the inspired word of God nor an accurate depiction of historical events;
• The New Testament means that any discussions about the Old Testament are largely irrelevant;
• A combination of the above.

It has been consistently presented that the New Testament (NT) is also the "inspired word of God" so here is an abridged version of my understanding of the origin of the present day Bible.

The Bible itself, as many in this thread have shown, did not appear "complete and whole" but was created by consensus through "the hands of man".
Why then did these men decide to include the Old Testament if its depiction of God was so different and why were some texts included while others were discarded to the "rubbish bin" of history?

These are really complicated questions, but one of the most likely reasons (in my opinion) is that when the "official Bible" was being created there was a need for Christians to have a history and a cohesive representation of their messianic figure (there were many alternative texts floating around that depicted Jesus in a number of contradictory ways).

This isn't relevant today of course, but in the second and third century there was a need for an ancient lineage to be shown to give the fledgling Church, through the Bible, a reason for its authority and an ancient history. It was a time of many competing religions and Christianity was just "the new kid on the block" amongst many much older and more powerful religious orders.

There was a very powerful man named Marcion in the second century CE who proposed a canon for the fledgling Church that didn't include the OT as he viewed its depiction of God to be incorrect.

Marcion's is a long story but essentially he was expelled by "the Church" (144 CE) and his ideas dropped as dangerous. He formed his own Church which survived for nearly three Centuries until the domineering Pauline Christian Roman Catholic Church persecuted the Marcionites (including torture and murder - you know the usual practices) out of existence. His canon included a version of Luke (which many scholars believe to be an earlier version of the accepted version in the Bible today) and 10 Pauline Espistles. Marcionites also discarded everything to do with the OT (fasting, Jehovah, angels, etc) as distractions to their "personal relationship with Jesus".

It should be noted that many of Marcion's ideas were similar to those of the Gnostics and the later Protestant Reformation.

What did happen though was it was decided that a sanctioned version of the Bible was required to present a cohesive representation of Jesus and an official group of texts were decided upon. By the time of the Council of Nicaea it was well established but it wasn't official (canon), as far as I'm aware, until the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent (1546) in response to the Lutheran (Protestant) movement.

Anyway, the Christian sect was "small fry" but the Roman Emperor Constantine ( 272–337 CE) was having difficulties with infighting between the different powerful religious groups. This caused trouble in the Empire and Constantine allegedly had a "vision of the cross" before the 'Battle of Milvian Bridge' (312 CE) and had his troops paint a cross on their shields (there is much contention as to whether this event occurred and/or whether Constantine was a Christian prior to this). He first had Christianity recognised as a religion, as part of a broader religious tolerance policy in the Empire, but towards the end of his reign he had sanctioned the sacking of non-Christian temples. That's how Christianity came to prominence. The Church (or more correctly "Churches") existed before this of course (for example Ignatius talks about "The Church" in the second Century CE) but, as far as I'm aware, it wasn't until Constantine adopted it that it came to prominence and as a result spread throughout the Roman Empire.

As an interesting side note on his death Constantine was still deified as a god by the Roman Senate, as was the tradition of the period, so either way his after-life was assured.

So that's the "short and dirty" version of my understanding of how we got the Roman Catholic Church and the Bible as it is today. There's lots more but that's up to those who are more interested in the history of Christianity than I am to relate.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone, just posting a brief summary of my position and looking forward to the continued discussion.
Kind Regards,
Panopticon

[58andfixed]

What if everyone who suspects the accuracy, veracity and completeness of The Bible is closer to the Truth than those that have super-glued their hand to the light-switch at some one of the various Churches of some one of the 33,000+ denominations of Organized Christian Religions ?

What if those that might believe in God, or Jesus, and have based their reasons for the rejection of man's inhumanity to man [starving masses; genetic deformities; asymmetric talents among people; pain and suffering; lack of evidence;] on corrupted theology ?

Where have Atheists and Agnostics picked up their ideas of how God thinks, behaves and guides mortals obtained their perspectives from ?

It seems to me, they have based their perspectives on some one of the many Bibles, and they too have this cornerstone of a 'such a strong argument against a God, which rests on the perfection, accuracy and complete nature of a Bible.'

What if a Bible needs to be considered distinctly separate from what any one Organized Religion believes about God, just as any Bible needs to be considered distinctly separate from the potential reality of whether God exists, and Her attributes ?

The consequences of tying together A Bible, an Organized Religion, and the reality of a God, into one 'unwrappable package' is that perhaps too many have tossed the baby out with the bathwater -- in error.

I do NOT see that those who socialize among others with a similar bias in their beliefs [aka 'belong' to a Church] will drop their belief in God by admitting to a book that has been compiled, cherry-picked, edited & re-edited by men. However the much broader constituency of people who have satisfied themselves that if there was a Creator, such as is portrayed in a Bible, is consistently inconsistent from so many perspectives, would have to reconsider their argument if more admitted to the reality of fragilities in this most sacred book of books.

For me, the separating of these three ideas helped to allow me to experience the unifying perspective of The First Source, while accepting the reality of so many authors and researchers about the contradictions within any one Bible, as well as the one time mystifying division among so many 'true believers' of apparently one book.

Having a deep conviction to a belief doesn't make anything more real, other than the obvious defensive nature one can develop as a result that deeply held belief.

However, the consequences of false beliefs can be for a deeper division among men than otherwise need be.

A perspective of humility can have no other outcome other than less arrogance than is currently the case, which of course rests on this 'perfect & sacred Bible.'

Similarly though, those that rest easy for their selection of an Atheist or Agnostic perspective will be also brought into question, of some doubt, given the obvious contradictions within this sacred text.

Just to be succinctly and as perfectly clear as possible:

1. Of the contradictions & inconsistencies within any Bible, I have no doubt they exist.

2. Of the division amongst men and their various perspectives on how to codify ritual and elevate people to the position of priests, padres, fathers, ministers, gurus, cardinals and popes, I have no doubt that these ideas are also faulty.

3. Of the attributes of The First Source I have many questions & doubts outside of the obvious [to me] of the reality of the need for a Designer to explain so much, and plumb what wisdom I can each and every day.

- 58

[RedeZra]

Posted by panopticon (here)

The Bible itself, as many in this thread have shown, did not appear "complete and whole" but was created by consensus through "the hands of man".
Why then did these men decide to include the Old Testament if its depiction of God was so different and why were some texts included while others were discarded to the "rubbish bin" of history?

These are really complicated questions, but one of the most likely reasons (in my opinion) is that when the "official Bible" was being created there was a need for Christians to have a history and a cohesive representation of their messianic figure (there were many alternative texts floating around that depicted Jesus in a number of contradictory ways).

the Septuagint (Old Testament) completed before Jesus Christ is an Ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible and not an invention of Christians

the first Christians were Jews as Jesus was a Jew in a Jewish culture complete with Jewish history tradition and Scripture


so the Old Testament is not an invention of Christians but a translation of Jewish Scripture


the Jews did not recognize their own Messiah whom their Scriptures foretold when and how would come

and so we have this split between Judaism and Christianity

where Christianity accepts the Hebrew Bible or the Old Testament as the historical backdrop for Jesus Christ

while Judaism does not accept the Christ as their Messiah and so nor the New Testament

[RedeZra]

we all agree that there is a High Intelligence behind the formation of the earth and everything in it

and there ends the agreement

[RedeZra]

this High Intelligence behind the formation of the earth and everything in it is God


if God did not form the earth surround it with atmosphere and place a huge hot ball in the sky

then we would not have this discussion

[RedeZra]

why is it that most godmen are born in India ?

is it not because the Indian culture has not lost faith in God and so there is in India still a fertile place on earth for God to come and godmen to be born

where on earth would God and godmen feel welcome if not in India

[markpierre]

This pretense of knowing what God 'wills', or even what 'Gods will' means, is beyond ridiculous.

[RedeZra]

Posted by markpierre (here)
This pretense of knowing what God 'wills', or even what 'Gods will' means, is beyond ridiculous.

i don't know what God will with you


the saints sages and scriptures say seek God

so i guess Get to know God is a good start

[markpierre]

Posted by RedeZra (here)

Posted by markpierre (here)
This pretense of knowing what God 'wills', or even what 'Gods will' means, is beyond ridiculous.

i don't know what God will with you


the saints sages and scriptures say seek God

so i guess Get to know God is a good start

I suppose that depends on if you think God's gone missing. But I wouldn't be looking for him in material that misrepresents him.

Might look within, as was suggested.

[Beren]

Posted by markpierre (here)

Posted by RedeZra (here)

Posted by markpierre (here)
This pretense of knowing what God 'wills', or even what 'Gods will' means, is beyond ridiculous.

i don't know what God will with you


the saints sages and scriptures say seek God

so i guess Get to know God is a good start

I suppose that depends on if you think God's gone missing. But I wouldn't be looking for him in material that misrepresents him.

Might look within, as was suggested.

Exactly that!
That is also Christ 's statement.
Look what is written in Bible as history of one nation and their ups and downs.
Every nation has that.

Christ came as unifier. ALL are one in God . All are brothers and sisters.

[markpierre]

[QUOTE=Beren;383192][QUOTE=markpierre;383161][QUOTE=RedeZra;383147]

Posted by markpierre (here)

Christ came as unifier. ALL are one in God . All are brothers and sisters.

Is that what you see when you look within? Do you recognize that and experience it? Or do you see a lot of separate people who don't agree with you?

Can't have both.