peacefulpete
JoinedPosts by peacefulpete
-
19
Not only the ORG who perverts Scriptures!
by BoogerMan injohn 14:6 - "jesus said to him, “i am the way, the truth, and the life.
no one comes to the father except through me.".
certain christian denominations lie & contradict jesus' crystal clear statement, by promoting the following dogma:.
-
-
-
9
I'll just leave this 'ere
by stan livedeath inwoman who died and 'went to heaven' says she now knows when armageddon will happen (msn.com).
-
-
peacefulpete
A lifetime ago, I preached in a community that had a large mental health clinic. We had an unusually large number of recent patients. One of them claimed to have 'discovered' the date using math and a dozen or so passages. We got a good laugh in the car group. Looking back... oh, the irony.
-
78
God, one person, or three?
by slimboyfat inthe trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
-
-
peacefulpete
The trinity is a man-made doctrine to take focus and worship away from Jehovah...
Rattigan, .....do you still imagine a conspiracy by evil agents of the Devil?
Thousands of hours have been spent by patient people, trying to assist former JWs that doctrines like the trinity were sincere efforts to harmonize divergent views of Jesus found in the NT. Their mistake, of course, was presuming there was a 'mystery' concealed in the contradictions.
The pre-Christian conceptualizations of God included similarly contradictory descriptions. As brief examples: while some passages said God cannot be seen, the Kabod of God is. This Kabod (Glory) speaks, listens and acts. Is then the Kabod God or not? Likewise passages that introduce a Mal'ak of God involved in stories that otherwise refer to God speaking and acting. Many Jews objected to the notion that God interacted directly with lowly humans (despite ancient tradition expressly saying so) and adjusted the texts accordingly. In this way God's separateness is preserved.
Famously God is described as using a feminine agent "Wisdom" to perform his will in creating the physical world and providing the Torah. In a parallel way, Jews, as evidenced by Philo of Alexanderia expounded on the 'Logos' as an emanation i.e.. 'Son' of God that was at the same time effectively God in a certain role.
Christain writers, understanding Christ to be an emanation of God, naturally described him in identical terms, Logos, Son, even Wisdom and Light. It was not a demonic conspiracy.
-
21
A Fun Topic: BEFORE God
by Terry inyuh gotta start somewhere, right?.
big bang theory is not a theory of the creation of the universe, but rather a model of the history and evolution of the universe from its earliest moments.
it wasn't really until the time of st. augustine that the idea of "out of nothing" entered the discussion.. a reading of genesis doesn't force the "out of nothing" into it at all.. in fact, a kind of chaotic "something" was put into form - or - something out of "something", the way adam is formed from red mud and eve from the rib.
-
-
peacefulpete
... God created everything outside of himself as a NATURAL first step. Meaning, it wasn't out of desperation. More precisely, as we've come to read over and over in the scriptures, he wills all things into existence out of love.
Love as a motive, doesn't seem to be obvious in a universe defined, formed and maintained by catastrophe and consumption. The scriptures, you elude to describe the human tendency to anthropomorphize. We give water and food to those we love, so it isn't surprising that some projected this upon a creator. In a similar anthropomorphic way, the same writer often assumed terrors and slaughter on those this creator didn't favor. If you really think about it, since only a 'few' are described as being so favored, the motivation for such a creator might be philosophically argued to have been a schadenfreude type pleasure in the suffering of others.
However, the writers of the Bible were not united in any particular perspective. Many assumed a predestination of fates. Some fated to suffer and be destroyed, some to suffer a 'little' but then be set free from this world. All 'creation' is said to be 'groaning and waiting' for some remedy to the catastrophe and consumption. IOW, the creation, as it existed, didn't reflect love but only aspects of it, and the promise of escaping it.
As I read the Bible, I see authors trying to make sense of what was all around them. Suffering, deprivation, random injustice and death and yet sufficient resources for the world to continue on.
I had a chipmunk who lives in my woodpile 'trained' to be fed by hand. It brought me and the chipmunk much pleasure. A few nights ago, we heard horrible squealing as the hawk tore his flesh. I imagine that brought the hawk much pleasure. Me and the chipmunk not so much. How do I make theological sense of that.
-
21
A Fun Topic: BEFORE God
by Terry inyuh gotta start somewhere, right?.
big bang theory is not a theory of the creation of the universe, but rather a model of the history and evolution of the universe from its earliest moments.
it wasn't really until the time of st. augustine that the idea of "out of nothing" entered the discussion.. a reading of genesis doesn't force the "out of nothing" into it at all.. in fact, a kind of chaotic "something" was put into form - or - something out of "something", the way adam is formed from red mud and eve from the rib.
-
-
peacefulpete
Enjoyable post. It is not due to ignorance that many ancient cosmogonies assumed a preexisting chaos from which order emerged. They actually gave it much thought.
In contrast, a preexistent highly ordered intelligence, as assumed by many, needs be defined by orderliness and ability to formulate. If there were nothing 'other' to order or formulate, any words like intelligent or orderly become oxymoronic. That is unless we hypothesize a self organizing, self formulation, an ever evolving self improvement from humble beginnings, an able intelligence from something lesser. IMO, this is the only logical origins for any hypothesized deity. An entity having evolved to the point of creativity.
This however returns us to a chaos cosmogony. Simplistic disorder with potential.
-
34
The snake of Genesis 3:1
by Halcon inwe've got some really knowledgeable members on here so i have a question for them and everybody.
what was the earliest adjective used to describe the snake of genesis 3:1?
currently one can read words in english translations like 'cunning' and 'crafty'....but in other languages you see words like 'wise' and astute...which convey a completely different idea.. i'm wondering what may have been the earliest and most accurate adjective known or used.
-
-
peacefulpete
OK, I'll stop trying to define you and your beliefs.
-
34
The snake of Genesis 3:1
by Halcon inwe've got some really knowledgeable members on here so i have a question for them and everybody.
what was the earliest adjective used to describe the snake of genesis 3:1?
currently one can read words in english translations like 'cunning' and 'crafty'....but in other languages you see words like 'wise' and astute...which convey a completely different idea.. i'm wondering what may have been the earliest and most accurate adjective known or used.
-
-
peacefulpete
I don't have a minimalist approach to Scripture.
Whether or not you identify with the label, by the usual definition your comments place you in the 'Minimalist' camp. The unbiased dating of the bulk of the material to the Persian and Greek periods and caution about the assumption of historicity of the United Kingdom and Patriarchs.
Davies, Thompson and Lemche are popular scholars endorsing this position. So, in my view, you are in good company.
-
34
The snake of Genesis 3:1
by Halcon inwe've got some really knowledgeable members on here so i have a question for them and everybody.
what was the earliest adjective used to describe the snake of genesis 3:1?
currently one can read words in english translations like 'cunning' and 'crafty'....but in other languages you see words like 'wise' and astute...which convey a completely different idea.. i'm wondering what may have been the earliest and most accurate adjective known or used.
-
-
peacefulpete
By wholistic I meant as I said, reading the final product as a whole, with primary concern for the intents of the compiler and less concerned about the more ancient elements that it was constructed from. Your 'teachers' are those who taught you this approach and world view. Your 'ignostic' take is just one of many views held by Jews. You have commented earlier how even within Reform Judaism, belief in the literalness/historicity of the text is sometimes present. I appreciate your sharing your minimalist approach, but really, we can't say this is 'standard'. Judaism is as diverse as Christianity, liberal to conservative regarding historicity.
I called audacious (daring, bold) the assertion that the redactors/writers deliberately used archaisms to give the story an appearance of antiquity. This included anthropomorphisms of God and primitive cult practice. That seems a counterproductive effort. If the goal was a new identity and absolution from barbarity of the past, why invent a vibrant past filled with it. It seems more plausible to see the author/compiler as a reformer but yet bound and inspired by more ancient traditions. Building a new house from reclaimed materials, not taking new materials and distressing and aging them to make a new house.
Or have I again misunderstood you?
-
34
The snake of Genesis 3:1
by Halcon inwe've got some really knowledgeable members on here so i have a question for them and everybody.
what was the earliest adjective used to describe the snake of genesis 3:1?
currently one can read words in english translations like 'cunning' and 'crafty'....but in other languages you see words like 'wise' and astute...which convey a completely different idea.. i'm wondering what may have been the earliest and most accurate adjective known or used.
-
-
peacefulpete
The Law was written during the Iron Age attempting to use tropes of the Bronze Age to make it look like it was written by the patriarchs of the Jews. So the Levitical priests gave God anthropomorphic features, like the gods of the Gentiles. The only problem is that God is never the same in any of the stories.
Italics mine
That's an audacious suggestion, but not only does God present differently, so do the priests and Levites. Multiple origin stories and roles. This takes me back to the source material and what it might tell us about evolving Yahwism. You and your teachers prefer a wholistic approach, asking only 'what do the final compilers/redactors intend by their repetition of this story?'
I see these approaches as two sides of a shekel.
-
15
Did you consider Paul as false prophet?
by PeterNobody indear brothers!
you as a bible researchers, refused the catholicism, but still use the books which catholic church defined as the source of truth.
did you consider paul as a false prophet?
-
-
peacefulpete
At the most basic level that can be substantiated, we know very little about Christian origins. What we know is that at some point a movement 'perceived' that God sent an emissary. Did they arrive at that through eisegesis of the OT and visions? Some comments in the extant writings of Paul would suggest that. There are scholars who argue that the 'soft' start of Christianity was a hundred years before the time the Gospel story indicates, as a branch of the Essenes. Regardless, it would seem that the death of the emissary was an original tenet of that movement, but to be honest, there were even early Christians who did not believe this emissary died either through docetic Christology or substitution. There were many rival factions that held many very different views at a very early point, that makes certainty regarding any 'original' form impossible. The writings of Paul, at best, represent a selection of what was written. Some 'letters' are collections of snippets have been heavily redacted and supplemented. Through critical analysis, what seems to be authentic, reveals a man who is convinced of his importance, having been chosen before birth to deliver a message received through visions. Contrary to the 2nd century Acts of the Apostles conversion story, he adamantly denies indebtedness to any human.
Paul is not the originator of Christianity; he encounters Christians of different types as he preaches his own unique form of the faith. However, his successes influence the broader Christian movement in profound ways a century later.
Someone deeply influenced was Marcion. What we know of Marcion comes unfortunately, through the writings of his opposers and those writings themselves are suspect of redaction/pseudonymity. Nevertheless, in those writings we read of a Marcion convinced that the dominant Proto-orthodoxy, of which he is part, has altered the texts of Paul and the Gospel of the Lord and claimed to have restored the original form. He resolves the contradictions of a vengeful God of the OT with his more refined take on Christianity by adopting the view that Yahweh was an imposter who had planned his own Messiah to rule the world through. He is charged by some of his opposers of having read the OT too literally. Marcion adopted the OT Yahweh demiurge concept from Gnostics, and claimed the true God was not this creator of the physical world , but rather the heavenly Father of Jesus, who was sent to enlighten and inspire humanity to better itself and thwart the efforts of Yahweh. No judgement day no hellfire, no miracles in the church. It was a kinder gentler form of Christianity that attracted many for 100 years. It seems impossible now to separate the OT from Christianity, but the reformer Marcion tried. What doomed his efforts was likely the celibacy requirement, lol.
As has been said many times here, the Canonical Gospels, especially the Synoptics, Mark, Matt and Luke, are anonymous recensions of the same anonymous work. They are not separate works, as can be seen by a parallel examination. G.Matt and G.Luke are rewrites of G.Mark, incorporating nearly the entirety of the shorter version verbatim, with many additions and redactions. The end products are different enough to pass as separate Gospels. The names attached to them is the result of a later effort to give them authoritative clout by the proto-orthodoxy with its doctrine of Apostolic succession (i.e. only works of direct companions of the Apostles can be authoritative) 'Luke', is a name mentioned in Paul's Philemon 24 as a "fellow worker". (The name reappears in the later Deutero-Pauline Colossians and 2 Timothy.) We know nothing else about Luke other than very late tradition and there is no reason to be convinced he was involved in the writing of G.Luke (or an early form of Acts which a later editor combined with it). There were many other Gospel versions in use that were not favored by the emerging orthodoxy. It was the golden age of pseudonymous Christian writing. The Gospel of Mark, itself anonymously produced, perhaps in Rome, has been convincingly argued to have been a narrative version of a stage production, in Homeric style, utilizing OT typology (and possibly Sayings Gospels) to 'flesh out' the emissary's experiences and make what may have been an already aging movement a new contemporary touch. It certainly influenced many Christians that followed. Paul, apart from some late glosses, seems to know of no such extensive tradition such as is described in the story of Mark. Neither does the author of Hebrews. Even Justin (150ish), (unlike Papias his predecessor) who favors written over oral tradition quotes from what he calls Memoires of the Apostles (a later gloss identifies them as Gospels) but doesn't use the names as assigned later nor does he refer to them as 'scripture' reserving that for the OT. If the extant copies of Irenaeus can be trusted, at some point between Justin and Irenaeus (180ish) the Gospels were given their names.