The other lads view

ScumLord

The big 3 religions Christianity, Judaism and Islam are basically different takes on the same God, right?

Should these 3 different groups spend more time reading each others books? If they are truly interested in knowing the faith better they should have the complete picture. Especially the Tanakh seeing as it's the faith that Christianity is based on.

Is this something that happens with regular Christians? I'd assume it isn't. Especially in the States.

PDN

ScumLord wrote: »

The big 3 religions Christianity, Judaism and Islam are basically different takes on the same God, right?

Should these 3 different groups spend more time reading each others books? If they are truly interested in knowing the faith better they should have the complete picture. Especially the Tanakh seeing as it's the faith that Christianity is based on.

Is this something that happens with regular Christians? I'd assume it isn't. Especially in the States.

Most 'regular' Christians would be encouraged by their churches to read both the Old Testament (Tanakh) and the New Testament. That would be as true in the States as anywhere else.

I wouldn't see the point in Christians spending a lot of time with the Koran since I believe Islam to be a false corruption that started out as a Christian heresy.

ScumLord

PDN wrote: »

Most 'regular' Christians would be encouraged by their churches to read both the Old Testament (Tanakh) and the New Testament. That would be as true in the States as anywhere else.

I didn't know the Tanakh and the old testament where the same book. Question is pretty pointless if they are. Fair enough on the Koran.

Zangetsu

I was thinking something similar myself recently, I'll do my best to explain it...

"Every religion (that I'm aware of anyways) believes in some sort of afterlife or a heaven and they all believe in a higher power."

Is it not possible that all religions are praying to the same higher power, but have a different way of explaining it. Considering there are different cultures and languages in the world would it not be likely that people have different words or storys relating to the same thing?

^ Sorry if I'm not expressing myself well enough but as you all well know topics like this are difficult to explain...

_________________________

PDN:
"I wouldn't see the point in Christians spending a lot of time with the Koran since I believe Islam to be a false corruption that started out as a Christian heresy."

As I said above, would it not be more of a adaptation to relay that story to another culture? Not wrong, just told in a different way so that the people of that region would understand?

Christianity is quite similar to Islam in its teaching and idealism's, could the same not be said about Christianity and another religion that came before ie. Judaism and Judaism to another religion before that?

I have lots of questions on the topic as I am HUGELY interested in it. Readers please don't take anything I have said in a bad way, I'm just curious of your opinions!

ScumLord

Zangetsu wrote: »

I was thinking something similar myself recently, I'll do my best to explain it...

"Every religion (that I'm aware of anyways) believes in some sort of afterlife or a heaven and they all believe in a higher power."

Is it not possible that all religions are praying to the same higher power, but have a different way of explaining it. Considering there are different cultures and languages in the world would it not be likely that people have different words or storys relating to the same thing?

I'm still somewhat open to religion, there is a certain harmony to the universe that interests me. If there is a God (whatever it may be, the bibles are just too out of date to be reliable) I'd like to know all there is to know. I'd really consider myself all religions, but I think the only way to truly know God is to study his work, which can only be reliably done through Science which is the study of the natural world. The only thing anyone can really be sure is his (seeing as he is the creator).

The main reason I don't discount religions out right is that the human brain is the greatest thinking device we know of, and I think there's something behind the objective of religion that shouldn't be discounted.

Zangetsu

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm still somewhat open to religion, there is a certain harmony to the universe that interests me. If there is a God (whatever it may be, the bibles are just too out of date to be reliable) I'd like to know all there is to know. I'd really consider myself all religions, but I think the only way to truly know God is to study his work, which can only be reliably done through Science which is the study of the natural world. The only thing anyone can really be sure is his (seeing as he is the creator).

The main reason I don't discount religions out right is that the human brain is the greatest thinking device we know of, and I think there's something behind the objective of religion that shouldn't be discounted.

I'd really consider myself all religions, but I think the only way to truly know God is to study his work, which can only be reliably done through Science which is the study of the natural world.

"..only be reliable..." Not the best choice of words imo... Only is such a strong word

Regarding the main body of your post, in that sense, and I'm sure its been said before, can science not be considered as a modern religion?

ScumLord

Zangetsu wrote: »

I'd really consider myself all religions, but I think the only way to truly know God is to study his work, which can only be reliably done through Science which is the study of the natural world.

"..only be reliable..." Not the best choice of words imo... Only is such a strong word

Regarding the main body of your post, in that sense, and I'm sure its been said before, can science not be considered as a modern religion?

Science is basically just the scientific method. It's just observation and experimentation. It couldn't really be called a religion.

Zangetsu

ScumLord wrote: »

Science is basically just the scientific method. It's just observation and experimentation. It couldn't really be called a religion.

Ya can't use a word to describe itself!

From what I understand (going out a bit on this one!)...

Religion = Belief in higher power
Science = Belief (and yes you can call it that) in something more beond what we see and feel.

I think religion is a guide on a personal level, ie. a collection of story's that a person can relate do, describing every day actions and emotions. I think science is just an expansion of this (or another chapter one might say) studying whats beyond our own thoughts, feelings and emotions.

The world outside our heads for want of a better phrase... The universe according to science, is expanding after all...

I'd love to go further in but I need my bed! I'll be back!

ScumLord

The Scientific method could certainly be used as a personal Philosophy to live your life by like those zeitgeists do. To me though it's just a way of asking questions so that you'll get more accurate answers. Or something along those lines.

I'm sure one of the atheists will be able to explain it much better.

You do get the intolerance you get with religion though.

Fanny Cradock

Zangetsu wrote: »

I have lots of questions on the topic as I am HUGELY interested in it. Readers please don't take anything I have said in a bad way, I'm just curious of your opinions!

Ask away! I think you will find that most people will be delighted to have a chat even if you ultimately don't accept what they say. To often we get bogged down in the same old debates here (from Christians and non-Christians alike) and don' really listen to the other side. Such is life, I guess!

philologos

ScumLord wrote: »

The big 3 religions Christianity, Judaism and Islam are basically different takes on the same God, right?

Should these 3 different groups spend more time reading each others books? If they are truly interested in knowing the faith better they should have the complete picture. Especially the Tanakh seeing as it's the faith that Christianity is based on.

Is this something that happens with regular Christians? I'd assume it isn't. Especially in the States.

Well the Tanakh or the Jewish Scriptures are already an integral part of the Christian Bible and of Christian worship. As for the Qur'an, I've read sections of it, and I have a copy of it (Yusif Ali translation). It's all thought provoking stuff, however, I believe only one of the versions of Jesus can be true. For me that's the Jesus depicted in the Gospels.

Zombrex

Zangetsu wrote: »

Ya can't use a word to describe itself!

From what I understand (going out a bit on this one!)...

Religion = Belief in higher power
Science = Belief (and yes you can call it that) in something more beond what we see and feel.

I think religion is a guide on a personal level, ie. a collection of story's that a person can relate do, describing every day actions and emotions. I think science is just an expansion of this (or another chapter one might say) studying whats beyond our own thoughts, feelings and emotions.

The world outside our heads for want of a better phrase... The universe according to science, is expanding after all...

I'd love to go further in but I need my bed! I'll be back!

What Lord means is that science is a methodology and the reasons behind the methodology. What you are talking about are more conclusions of science than science itself.

PDN

Zangetsu wrote: »

"Every religion (that I'm aware of anyways) believes in some sort of afterlife or a heaven and they all believe in a higher power."

Buddhist might disagree with that statement.

Is it not possible that all religions are praying to the same higher power, but have a different way of explaining it. Considering there are different cultures and languages in the world would it not be likely that people have different words or storys relating to the same thing?

That could be true if the different religions were saying things that complement each others stories. However, in many cases the different religions are making claims that are mutually exclusive or contradictory. In such cases then they can't all be true (unless we subscribe to a relativistic postmodernism mind-mush).

As I said above, would it (Islam) not be more of a adaptation to relay that story to another culture? Not wrong, just told in a different way so that the people of that region would understand?

Christianity is quite similar to Islam in its teaching and idealism's, could the same not be said about Christianity and another religion that came before ie. Judaism and Judaism to another religion before that?

That is a good question in that Christian theology teaches the concept of Progressive Revelation - that God did not reveal Himself to man all at once, but a bit at a time.

However, there are some crucial differences. Christianity builds upon Judaism without rubbishing Judaism. It says that Judaism was good - but
incomplete. Christianity also regards the Jewish Scriptures as the Word of God. Islam, however, takes a different view of Christianity. It says that Christianity is wrong and that the New Testament is distorted and therefore not the Word of God.

Islam also denies the central doctrine and event of Christianity - namely,the death of Christ upon the Cross - so I do not see how the two religions can be described as having similar teachings.

Furthermore, the claim of Christianity, as outlined at the beginning of the Book of Hebrews, is that the coming of Christ is not just another event in a sequence of revelations. Instead, the Incarnation of Christ is a full revelation of God in a unique, history-changing and never to be repeated way. It is the revelation by which all other revelations must be measured.

ScumLord

PDN wrote: »

That is a good question in that Christian theology teaches the concept of Progressive Revelation - that God did not reveal Himself to man all at once, but a bit at a time.

Kinky. :pac:

Furthermore, the claim of Christianity, as outlined at the beginning of the Book of Hebrews, is that the coming of Christ is not just another event in a sequence of revelations. Instead, the Incarnation of Christ is a full revelation of God in a unique, history-changing and never to be repeated way. It is the revelation by which all other revelations must be measured.

So Jesus is basically the end of the story and we're just waiting for closing time?

I find it hard to distinguish between what Jesus might have actually said, and what was added after the fact. Do you think the New testament took liberty's with the truth when it was written?

PDN

ScumLord wrote: »

So Jesus is basically the end of the story and we're just waiting for closing time?

No, I would see it as more the case that Jesus gave us a full revelation of God and then it was opening time.

I find it hard to distinguish between what Jesus might have actually said, and what was added after the fact. Do you think the New testament took liberty's with the truth when it was written?

No, I think the New Testament writers were truthful and recorded what was said and done. If they really believed that Jesus was who He claimed to be then it would make sense for them to try to present as accurate a picture of Him as possible.

Fanny Cradock

ScumLord wrote: »

So Jesus is basically the end of the story and we're just waiting for closing time?

I would say that it was the beginning of a new chapter in the story of creation - arguably the most important chapter. So it's not about 'closing time' where we turn off the lights, shut the doors behind us and head of to either heaven or hell. That notion completely misses one of the most commonly misunderstood messages of Christianity, IMO. I believe that the bible teaches that the final destination isn't playing harps in heaven (that's not to say that it isn't part of the plan), rather it is about new creation and a new type of existence on this world.

Fanny Cradock

N.T Wright has more to say on this.


http://www.ntwrightpage.com/

ScumLord

Ok so just clarify this bit..

PDN wrote: »

That is a good question in that Christian theology teaches the concept of Progressive Revelation - that God did not reveal Himself to man all at once, but a bit at a time.

Furthermore, the claim of Christianity, as outlined at the beginning of the Book of Hebrews, is that the coming of Christ is not just another event in a sequence of revelations. Instead, the Incarnation of Christ is a full revelation of God in a unique, history-changing and never to be repeated way. It is the revelation by which all other revelations must be measured.

Has Jesus completed Gods revelations or is there more to come? That is what I meant by closing up shop on the revelations.

Slav

ScumLord wrote: »

The big 3 religions Christianity, Judaism and Islam are basically different takes on the same God, right?

Yes and no. If however we say "yes" then we'll have to extend the list to include pretty much every religion in the world (well, maybe some of them like shamanism or even Buddhism won't easily fit in but things like Hinduism, Daoism or all sorts of Paganism and Gnosticism most certainly will).

On the other hand we can say "no" and it also will be correct. If you ask a Muslim whether Allah ever became a man you know what their answer would be. But God of Christians did, so maybe the gods they are talking about are different after all?

Slav

Zangetsu wrote: »

PDN:
"I wouldn't see the point in Christians spending a lot of time with the Koran since I believe Islam to be a false corruption that started out as a Christian heresy."

As I said above, would it not be more of a adaptation to relay that story to another culture? Not wrong, just told in a different way so that the people of that region would understand?

It would not. Remember that there were practically no cultural differences between pagan Semitic tribes in Syria who converted to Christianity and those pagan Semitic tribes of Arabia who who converted to Islam few hundred years later.

There is also a logical problem with that sort of theories:
A. There is Absolute Something
B. This Absolute Something can be described differently in different cultural and linguistic context.
C. Those descriptions contradict each other.

It implies either:
* Absolute Something depends on the context it described on and therefore it's not absolute but relative (so A can not be true),
* or the descriptions are wrong (at very least all but one) and therefore B can not be true.

Christianity is quite similar to Islam in its teaching and idealism's,

Christianity and Islam are fundamentally different.

could the same not be said about Christianity and another religion that came before ie. Judaism and Judaism to another religion before that?

Judaism and what? Again, Judaism (at least its pre-Talmudic version) is fundamentally different to any and every religion of that time.

postcynical

ScumLord wrote: »

The big 3 religions Christianity, Judaism and Islam are basically different takes on the same God, right?

There is only one God;)

Should these 3 different groups spend more time reading each others books? If they are truly interested in knowing the faith better they should have the complete picture. Especially the Tanakh seeing as it's the faith that Christianity is based on.

Is this something that happens with regular Christians? I'd assume it isn't. Especially in the States.

Using an analogy with science, it would be like suggesting that all scientists should be trained in classical science, modern science and in intelligent design. Superficially they appear to be the same, or similar, but fundamentally they are irreconcilable. It is useful though that some individuals (Americans or not) would be versed in all three.

PDN

ScumLord wrote: »

Ok so just clarify this bit..

Has Jesus completed Gods revelations or is there more to come? That is what I meant by closing up shop on the revelations.

I personally find that being a Christian is an adventure where I learn and experience new things about God every day, so I certainly wouldn't claim that there are no new revelations. But, and this is a very big 'but', those revelations are relatively small scale and are subjective rather than objective. They do not become Scripture, but rather must be judged in the light of Scripture.

Christians believe that the Coming of Jesus (His birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension) was an epochal, history-defining event that changes the way we look at everything else. Therefore the Coming of Jesus, and the record of that event in Scripture, is the standard by which we assess and understand any other purported divine revelation.

Kipperhell

ScumLord wrote: »

The big 3 religions Christianity, Judaism and Islam are basically different takes on the same God, right?
.

Aren't there other religions that are just as big? Like Hindu and Buddhism. As the new testament was decided by a committee I find it hard to see how people can truly believe it. It relies on a divine control of people who have free will and thus a contradictory view of the religion AFAIK. I'd like to see Lilith to make a return into the bible myself.

PDN

Kipperhell wrote: »

As the new testament was decided by a committee

No it wasn't.

Kipperhell

PDN wrote: »

No it wasn't.

I'm pretty sure it was consolidated by a Roman ruler via a committee how do you think one unified version of each book and the exclusion of other books happened? There is the matter of translation also a group of people again would have to agree and be divinely controlled. The bible itself as a book has to have a history so what is the history if I am wrong?

Slav

Kipperhell wrote: »

I'd like to see Lilith to make a return into the bible myself.

She'll be struggling with that as she's never been there in the first place...

Kipperhell

Slav wrote: »

She'll be struggling with that as she's never been there in the first place...

I just had a look it turns out she is still in the King James Bible so I stand corrected. I did mean her to return as Adams first wife though

PDN

Kipperhell wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it was consolidated by a Roman ruler via a committee how do you think one unified version of each book and the exclusion of other books happened? There is the matter of translation also a group of people again would have to agree and be divinely controlled. The bible itself as a book has to have a history so what is the history if I am wrong?

And I'm more than pretty sure that you're mistaken.

It happened through an organic process where each local church, and a number of different groups of churches, discovered for themselves which books met fairly basic criteria for being accepted as Scripture.

I don't know if you are old enough to remember the first mass produced VCRs? There were two competing formats: Betamax and VHS. In the end Betamax faded away, not because a committee decided it should go, but simply because more people opted for VHS. Church historians think something very similar happened with the formation of the canon of Scripture.

The idea of a Roman ruler getting a committee to determine the books of the Bible is a bit of an urban legend popularised by muck like The Davinci Code. There certainly were Church Councils, such as the Council of Hippo in 393 AD, which did not see themselves as determining the Canon but rather as affirming the beliefs of the majority of churches as opposed to a few whacko cults that were trying to create new Bibles which included more recent spurious books.

The idea that these Councils had authority over the entire Christian church is a bit of a fiction since, by that time, there were already versions of Christianity, primarily in the East, that totally rejected Roman authority.

Kipperhell

PDN wrote: »

And I'm more than pretty sure that you're mistaken.

etc...

Actually what you have described is pretty much a committee one way or the other. A group of people determined the course of the bibles content. This seems at odds with free will and divine authority. There still remains different versions.

Using your betamax and Vhs analogy neither were actually right or wrong. The controlling powers of movie rights effectively determined which lead the market. By all account beta was actually a better standard. Effectively what is being suggested that survival of the fittest determined the bible's contents. I have worked with many people on determining best practice and it is not determined by the best solution but more often than not the people who have the most power. I don't see why this would have been any different at the time as it seems to be evident throughout history.

Slav

Kipperhell wrote: »

I just had a look it turns out she is still in the King James Bible so I stand corrected. I did mean her to return as Adams first wife though

I did actually mean Lilith as Adam's first wife: you can't return to Bible something that has never been there. It's quite likely that myths about Lilith (as daemon of night or something like that) are rather old and quite likely were borrowed by Jews from Babylon but they never were a part of pre-Talmudic Judaism. If I'm not mistaken the idea of Lilith being the first Adam's wife first appears in Medieval Ages in Talmudic and Kabbalistic tradition. It's up to you to decide how reliable these sources are and whether Kabbalah has anything in common with pre-Talmudic Judaism at all.

Kipperhell

Slav wrote: »

I did actually mean Lilith as Adam's first wife: you can't return to Bible something that has never been there. It's quite likely that myths about Lilith (as daemon of night or something like that) are rather old and quite likely were borrowed by Jews from Babylon but they never were a part of pre-Talmudic Judaism. If I'm not mistaken the idea of Lilith being the first Adam's wife first appears in Medieval Ages in Talmudic and Kabbalistic tradition. It's up to you to decide how reliable these sources are and whether Kabbalah has anything in common with pre-Talmudic Judaism at all.

I believe them as stories that intermingled. If I was to write a story and mention Batman as the man who saved me but never explained who he was people at present would understand who it was,his nature and generally the story of his beginnings. I wouldn't need to explain Batman as it is part of the culture.

Now at some time in the future the stories of Batman are lost and my story survives people of the time may wonder about this Batman character. They find stories of Michael Keating and think he is this Batman character.

Lilith as an entity existed for a long time and is referenced in the bible in a similar manner to my Batman. Later on there were extra back stories added to her which I would guess is just like all story telling.

I just don't find it plausible that a pure book could come from the manner in which the bible rose to its current position.

PDN

Kipperhell wrote: »

Actually what you have described is pretty much a committee one way or the other.

Not if we're speaking English it isn't. But I'd prefer it we didn't get dragged off into a debate on semantics where we enter a Humpty Dumptyish world where words mean whatever people want them to mean at any given point in time.

A group of people determined the course of the bibles content. This seems at odds with free will and divine authority.

OK, let's address the real issue. Christians would not see any contradiction between God using His authority to order things and people using their free will.

This applies as much to the writing of Scripture as to its transmission and the determining of the Canon. We do not believe that the writers of Scripture operated under any kind of mechanical dictation where their personalities and free will were somehow eradicated. When God wanted to give us the Book of Romans He did not take over Paul's personality and turn him into a robot. Instead God so shaped circumstances as to produce a guy called Paul who, by His own free will, could write the Book of Romans. The Holy Spirit's part was to inspire Paul and ensure that what he wrote (on this occasion) was without error.

Similarly, God used the early Church to determine which books came to be viewed as Scripture. In the early days there were plenty of apostles and eye-witnesses around who could confirm which stories about Jesus were true and which were junk. The first Christians used those Books which were either written by apostles or their close associates, which were consistent with the teaching of Jesus, and which they found strengthened and encouraged them even when they were faced with persecution and death. I see no contradiction between recognising both the authority of God and the free will of the early believers to have been at work in this process.

There still remains different versions.

It's not very clear what you mean by "different versions". If you mean different translations, then that is entirely normal since no translation can ever be exactly accurate and language evolves and changes.

Using your betamax and Vhs analogy neither were actually right or wrong. The controlling powers of movie rights effectively determined which lead the market. By all account beta was actually a better standard. Effectively what is being suggested that survival of the fittest determined the bible's contents. I have worked with many people on determining best practice and it is not determined by the best solution but more often than not the people who have the most power. I don't see why this would have been any different at the time as it seems to be evident throughout history.

Yes, I believe Betamax was better. The analogy was simply to illustrate how choices are made organically and not by committee. To try to stress the details of an analogy (for example, the analogy was unconnected with whether something was better or worse) will not aid good communication.

Slav

Kipperhell wrote: »

I believe them as stories that intermingled. If I was to write a story and mention Batman as the man who saved me but never explained who he was people at present would understand who it was,his nature and generally the story of his beginnings. I wouldn't need to explain Batman as it is part of the culture.

Now at some time in the future the stories of Batman are lost and my story survives people of the time may wonder about this Batman character. They find stories of Michael Keating and think he is this Batman character.

Lilith as an entity existed for a long time and is referenced in the bible in a similar manner to my Batman. Later on there were extra back stories added to her which I would guess is just like all story telling.

I just don't find it plausible that a pure book could come from the manner in which the bible rose to its current position.

The analogy does not really work. If you are (as a part of a big team) writing a book about Chiroptera evolution (and your contribution is Introduction and few first chapters about bats in Eocene) then it's pretty much irrelevant what is Batman and who is Michael Keating even if other authors will very briefly mention them later in some context.

Otherwise the Bible would have to include every single Mesopotamian and Egyptian myth (just in case) as everything else that was known to Jews at that time. In case someone will make a reference to it but then it will be forgotten.

Kipperhell

Slav wrote: »

Otherwise the Bible would have to include every single Mesopotamian and Egyptian myth (just in case) as everything else that was known to Jews at that time. In case someone will make a reference to it but then it will be forgotten.

If I mention Batman in my story I don't have to mention Superman. If I mention a golden bull I don't have to mention Ra. There is no "just in case" element to my story I just mention a known figure in my culture.

PDN wrote: »

This applies as much to the writing of Scripture as to its transmission and the determining of the Canon. We do not believe that the writers of Scripture operated under any kind of mechanical dictation where their personalities and free will were somehow eradicated. When God wanted to give us the Book of Romans He did not take over Paul's personality and turn him into a robot. Instead God so shaped circumstances as to produce a guy called Paul who, by His own free will, could write the Book of Romans. The Holy Spirit's part was to inspire Paul and ensure that what he wrote (on this occasion) was without error.

Never suggested they were dictated nor involved taking control of a body. The mere controlling of situations by any means is removing or at least limiting free will. If you really have no choice then it is not free will. Now I can see the argument that you could orchestrate situations to keep putting forward option until you keep getting the one you want. But there would be divergence constantly with different stems and dilution of the message.

PDN wrote: »

Similarly, God used the early Church to determine which books came to be viewed as Scripture. In the early days there were plenty of apostles and eye-witnesses around who could confirm which stories about Jesus were true and which were junk. The first Christians used those Books which were either written by apostles or their close associates, which were consistent with the teaching of Jesus, and which they found strengthened and encouraged them even when they were faced with persecution and death. I see no contradiction between recognising both the authority of God and the free will of the early believers to have been at work in this process.

Fair enough you see god controlling elements and creating exactly what he wants by general means that rely on faith. Given that you have lived in the present world have you not seen the way in which people interact? I understand you don't want the beta/vhs analogy but I was pointing out that it was not an organic decision making process. The people in power influenced the decision making process of people with free will but effectively leaving the people with beta no real choice.

There are actually different version of the bible and different versions of the books contained. They have found earlier version of the books that were later edited. Now I am going on documentaries on National Geographic and similar. I am not claiming to be some scholar so if you don't believe that fair enough. Just for a minute consider that there are would that actually change matters for you?

PDN

Kipperhell wrote: »

There are actually different version of the bible and different versions of the books contained. They have found earlier version of the books that were later edited. Now I am going on documentaries on National Geographic and similar. I am not claiming to be some scholar so if you don't believe that fair enough. Just for a minute consider that there are would that actually change matters for you?

Other than vague references to National Geographic, could you provide any evidence for this extraordinary claim? What versions of what biblical books are there that are significantly different from the ones in our Bibles?

Slav

Kipperhell wrote: »

If I mention Batman in my story I don't have to mention Superman. If I mention a golden bull I don't have to mention Ra. There is no "just in case" element to my story I just mention a known figure in my culture.

You did not get the point I'm afraid. Where in Torah you can find Lilith?
As for the place in the Bible where Lilith is mentioned, what knowledge we are missing now that makes it difficult or impossible for us to understand the passage?

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

Other than vague references to National Geographic, could you provide any evidence for this extraordinary claim? What versions of what biblical books are there that are significantly different from the ones in our Bibles?

Careful PDN, you don't want to show your hand before the start of the 'Great Debate'. :pac:

Kipperhell

PDN wrote: »

Other than vague references to National Geographic, could you provide any evidence for this extraordinary claim? What versions of what biblical books are there that are significantly different from the ones in our Bibles?

Does it matter whether I am a credible source or not? I have stated why I believe it, why do you need proof of the belief? You are aware such programs exist? The question remains but it seems to be easier to ignore the post as whole and mock me. It is a theory that is out there and you can chose not to believe it but I ask you if it is true how would that effect things to you.

You seem to ignore the possibility that people with a vested interest may have shaped the bible. Given human nature and modern day interaction it seems logical to me similar would be prevalent at the time. Some say Joesph was a carpenter and others say he was actually a stonemason. Was Mary 13 or 20 when she Jesus.?Details like this seem to at least be in question.

Not the greatest source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith
Lilith mentioned as a screeching owl could easily be an addition but that is editing.

getz

PDN wrote: »

Other than vague references to National Geographic, could you provide any evidence for this extraordinary claim? What versions of what biblical books are there that are significantly different from the ones in our Bibles?

it has always bee known that a number of books had been rejected from the new testament -some like jesus flying through the air needed to be but other books with the mention of mary of magdala [mary magdalene] had been taken out ,simply because it wasent p c at that time for woman to be important -gospel of thomas114 peter says ;let mary leave us for woman are not worthy-yet jesus had told all his followers to go out and spread the word-the other thing jesus also said follow the laws of moses-whats that meen ?on the mary story the church has done its best ever since to discredit her even trying to link her up as a prostitute ,how many hall of fallen woman has the catholic church set up putting her name on them

Slav

Kipperhell wrote: »

Not the greatest source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith
Lilith mentioned as a screeching owl could easily be an addition but that is editing.

So the questions remain: where do you see Lilith in Torah and what's not so clear about Isaiah 34:14?

Kipperhell

Slav wrote: »

So the questions remain: where do you see Lilith in Torah and what's not so clear about Isaiah 34:14?

Ok you are so incredibly right about what was obviously a flippant remark by me.
You failed to understand what I was talking about and managed to prove I don't know the bible well enough to question how it was compiled and how it could be a collection of edited stories from many sources. Glad to know that people discussing the bible have been wasting their time because the whole thing is crystal clear. I am sure the bible doesn't reference people that aren't included in full explanations of their existence.
The fact she in the bible could be a pop culture reference from the time and people actually believe this. Good you know for sure I am not so sure but it is not completely far fetched either.
Maybe the bible is actually due another review and I am going to lead the cause from my own free will. :rolleyes:

Puck

PDN wrote: »

Not if we're speaking English it isn't. But I'd prefer it we didn't get dragged off into a debate on semantics where we enter a Humpty Dumptyish world where words mean whatever people want them to mean at any given point in time.

But it's so much easier than saying "you were right, I was wrong"!

PDN

Kipperhell wrote: »

Does it matter whether I am a credible source or not? I have stated why I believe it, why do you need proof of the belief? You are aware such programs exist? The question remains but it seems to be easier to ignore the post as whole and mock me.

No, you stated it as though it were fact. I don't see how asking you to provide a source is mocking you - but your reluctance to provide any sources seems strange.

Some say Joesph was a carpenter and others say he was actually a stonemason.

The Bible says he was a 'tekton' which means a craftsman. It could have been a carpenter or a stonemason. The fact that the Greek word is not specific hardly amounts to different versions of the Bible, does it?

Was Mary 13 or 20 when she Jesus.?Details like this seem to at least be in question.

The Bible doesn't tell us the age of Mary. Again, no-one in their right mind would say that constitutes "different versions" of the Bible.

getz wrote:

it has always bee known that a number of books had been rejected from the new testament -some like jesus flying through the air needed to be but other books with the mention of mary of magdala [mary magdalene] had been taken out ,simply because it wasent p c at that time for woman to be important -gospel of thomas114 peter says ;let mary leave us for woman are not worthy-yet jesus had told all his followers to go out and spread the word-the other thing jesus also said follow the laws of moses-whats that meen ?on the mary story the church has done its best ever since to discredit her even trying to link her up as a prostitute ,how many hall of fallen woman has the catholic church set up putting her name on them

Lots of books were rejected. Most because they were written much later than the canonical books, were not written by an apostle or a close associate, or contained doctrine that was inconsistent with the testimony of the eye-witnesses.

Nothing in the Bible says Mary Magdalene was a prostitute or immoral. She is recognised as a saint by the Catholic Church. The idea that she was a prostitute, according to historians, started under Pope Gregory in 591 AD - centuries after the Canon of Scripture was established - so it would clearly be unhistorical nonsense to try to pretend that was a factor in the decisions over which books were canonical.

Kipperhell

PDN wrote: »

No, you stated it as though it were fact. I don't see how asking you to provide a source is mocking you - but your reluctance to provide any sources seems strange..

Again you avoided the question. I am not reluctant I just don't remember the many such programs that have appeared on TV. I know one or two were on Channel 4 with the Minister biker guy. So are you denying that others scholars have made such claims?

PDN wrote: »

The Bible says he was a 'tekton' which means a craftsman. It could have been a carpenter or a stonemason. The fact that the Greek word is not specific hardly amounts to different versions of the Bible, does it?


The Bible doesn't tell us the age of Mary. Again, no-one in their right mind would say that constitutes "different versions" of the Bible..

Walk into a religious shop and they do have different versions of the bible with different text. Some are modern takes using modern language including the bible in lego. I guess you are right when it comes to minor details.

I am pretty sure that it has been stated some of the bible was written well after eye witnesses were alive too but I don't remember the source

PDN wrote: »

Lots of books were rejected. Most because they were written much later than the canonical books, were not written by an apostle or a close associate, or contained doctrine that was inconsistent with the testimony of the eye-witnesses..

Is it possible that any individual or group discredit certain accounts as late arrivals of inconsistent for their own means? Given how people work together in organisations and how we know the church is not immune from corruption.
Again cheap reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

This to me suggests what I have stated about the free will argument and multiple decisions. You end up with two different Christian bibles as the Eastern Orthodox Church seem to include extra books. Seems they have just as valid claim to being the correct church of Jesus

Given that the church has a vested interest in keeping things as they wanted I am sure if a newly found version of an original book came to light they would not use it. Considering the possible turmoil it would cause I think I might agree with them too.

Slav

Kipperhell wrote: »

You failed to understand what I was talking about

True.

and managed to prove I don't know the bible well enough to question how it was compiled and how it could be a collection of edited stories from many sources.

Far from it. I was just really interested where you are coming from with the idea that references to Lilith as Adam's first wife were somehow mysteriously removed from Genesis or were intentionally not included in the first place given the fact that this theory appears first time in Talmudic and Kabbalistic Judaism in Medieval Europe.

PDN

Kipperhell wrote: »

Again you avoided the question.

Yes, I also avoid other hypothetical questions such as what I would do if I was abducted by a UFO, what if the Matrix turns out to be fact not fiction, and what would I do if it turns out Elvis really is alive and delivering pizzas somewhere in New Mexico. My reluctance to engage in such debates probably goes some way to explaining why I moderate and post in the Christianity forum rather than the Conspiracy Theories forum.

So are you denying that others scholars have made such claims?

Am I denying that scholars have claimed to have discovered earlier copies of the biblical books that prove the later books have been significantly edited? I'm not aware of any serious scholar who has made such claim. If so, then where are these mysterious books?

This to me suggests what I have stated about the free will argument and multiple decisions. You end up with two different Christian bibles as the Eastern Orthodox Church seem to include extra books. Seems they have just as valid claim to being the correct church of Jesus

As valid as who? I would deny the right of any denomination to claim that they alone are the correct church of Jesus.

As for extra books (which both the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church have) I assume you are referring to the deutero-canonical books? These are Jewish works written before the time of Christ, and so have no bearing whatsoever on the Davinci Code- type nonsense of other Gospels or books being edited out of the New Testament.

Kipperhell

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I also avoid other hypothetical questions such as what I would do if I was abducted by a UFO, what if the Matrix turns out to be fact not fiction, and what would I do if it turns out Elvis really is alive and delivering pizzas somewhere in New Mexico. My reluctance to engage in such debates probably goes some way to explaining why I moderate and post in the Christianity forum rather than the Conspiracy Theories forum.

You had plenty of time to say you refuse to answer such questions but seem more bothered about the idea of even suggesting that it is possible. In all fairness how you describe the authority of god is closer to a conspiracy than what I am suggesting. You are saying that all things biblical were guided by an unseen hand. Given that ability to control such things you think he would have made more of an effort to make sure there was just one complete collection

PDN wrote: »

Am I denying that scholars have claimed to have discovered earlier copies of the biblical books that prove the later books have been significantly edited? I'm not aware of any serious scholar who has made such claim. If so, then where are these mysterious books?

Answering a question with a question is always avoiding answering especially considering the fact it is clear what I am asking. As I have already pointed out I am going on various different sources from TV and unfortunately didn't take extensive notes just in case I was quizzed later on. The claims have been made and you can't even conceive the possibility that is more than faith.

PDN wrote: »

As valid as who? I would deny the right of any denomination to claim that they alone are the correct church of Jesus.

I thought most religions claim to be the only true faith. They may all be friendlier to each other now but certain views of Christian religions are at odds with each other AFAIK.

PDN wrote: »

As for extra books (which both the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church have) I assume you are referring to the deutero-canonical books? These are Jewish works written before the time of Christ, and so have no bearing whatsoever on the Davinci Code- type nonsense of other Gospels or books being edited out of the New Testament.

Again a reference to the Davinci Code which I have never read or referenced. I did see the film and thought it to be entertaining but not exactly close to accurate on some of the most basic levels.

From what you are saying I take it that the new testament is correct and its organic growth was guided by god in order to get pure truth. For what ever reason god did not choose to do this with the entire collection of books and let it be put together by who ever was in charge of what ever church.

It can't even be entertained the notion that people involved in the bible had the nature of people at the time of compilation. I assume that means the other religions which resemble Christianity and other similar Christ like characters just stole from the Jewish faith prior to Christ's arrival just because it was a good idea? Catholic faith certainly borrowed dates from earlier religious teachings but nothing else? It seems unlikely is really my point and it seems to require a great deal of faith and denial of how information changes as it is transmitted.

Faith is fine I am just wondering how it is being used with regard to the source of further faith. I am curious at what point the church was left to it own true free will, is it the full stop on revelations? I know you are not saying every word in the bible is absolutely defined but there are people who do say every word is absolutely correct and should be absolutely adhered to. Do you see their view as miss guided and overly faithful?

PDN

Kipperhell wrote: »

You had plenty of time to say you refuse to answer such questions but seem more bothered about the idea of even suggesting that it is possible.

I'm not bothered at all by the suggestion that such a thing is possible. That is why I asked you to provide a source to back up your claims - so we can all see whether there is any substance to what you said.

Answering a question with a question is always avoiding answering especially considering the fact it is clear what I am asking.

Hold on, there's no way I'm going to let you get away with that.

You made the claim that earlier copies of biblical books have been discovered which prove that they have been changed and edited. In all my studies in this subject (both undergraduate and postgraduate) I have never heard of these books you claim to exist. I have asked you for a source and your only response is that you saw it on National Geographic. Yet now you're trying to make out that I'm the one who avoids questions?

I thought most religions claim to be the only true faith. They may all be friendlier to each other now but certain views of Christian religions are at odds with each other AFAIK.

No, that is wrong. My denomination most certainly does not claim to be the only true faith or the only true version of Christianity. I, like millions of other Christians, believe that different churches emphasise different aspects of God's truth. Denominations are, in the end, man-made constructs based on human interpretations of the Bible. As such all movements and denominations are right about some stuff and wrong about others.

There is an old Christian proverb that says you shouldn't search for the perfect church for two reasons:
1. You'll never find it.
2. If you do find it then it won't be perfect any more because you aren't perfect.

I believe that the true Christian Church is composed of every sincere believer who has trusted in Christ for their salvation and are sincerely trying to live by the teachings and example of Jesus Christ. This is true whether they are Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, Abyssinian Apostolic, Nestorian, Quaker, Salvation Army, Baptist, Methodist, Anglican, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Congregational, or any other stripe or flavour.

Kipperhell

PDN wrote: »

I'm not bothered at all by the suggestion that such a thing is possible. That is why I asked you to provide a source to back up your claims - so we can all see whether there is any substance to what you said.

As I have pointed out I have based the premise on TV shows I have seen. People with some pretty good knowledge seem to believe it is possible. I have never said I have any evidence. There is pure substance to the logical assumption that people in the past in an organisation acted in a similar way to organisations of present.

PDN wrote: »

Hold on, there's no way I'm going to let you get away with that.

You made the claim that earlier copies of biblical books have been discovered which prove that they have been changed and edited. In all my studies in this subject (both undergraduate and postgraduate) I have never heard of these books you claim to exist. I have asked you for a source and your only response is that you saw it on National Geographic. Yet now you're trying to make out that I'm the one who avoids questions?

I have clearly stated where I have gotten the idea you just don't think there is enough detail. You are taking the lack of information to mean I am avoiding the question when in fact I have answered it to the best of my memory. You have already said you avoided the questions from me. I am not actually claiming the books exist I am saying I believe there is a claim such books exist and it seems plausible . If you have taken that I have said they exist and I know their content I have either not been clear or you misunderstood. That should clarify the point you seem bothered by.

PDN wrote: »

No, that is wrong. My denomination most certainly does not claim to be the only true faith or the only true version of Christianity. I, like millions of other Christians, believe that different churches emphasise different aspects of God's truth. Denominations are, in the end, man-made constructs based on human interpretations of the Bible. As such all movements and denominations are right about some stuff and wrong about others.

I didn't say anything about your denomination rather that I am pretty sure many claim to be the only truth. There seems to be a belief that you somehow know that some teachings are true and others are false. This in fact would be very close to saying you (maybe your church) have the true faith. Or you could be saying that they all might have bits right and wrong and at some point we will find out which bits were which?

PDN wrote: »

I believe that the true Christian Church is composed of every sincere believer who has trusted in Christ for their salvation and are sincerely trying to live by the teachings and example of Jesus Christ. This is true whether they are Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, Abyssinian Apostolic, Nestorian, Quaker, Salvation Army, Baptist, Methodist, Anglican, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Congregational, or any other stripe or flavour.

Actually they all believe the bible is the teaching of Christ first which is my point. How they believe that appears to me a bit odd as a whole.

Again I asked some questions and you seemed to avoid them and go on about how I have a vague knowledge on the subject which I freely admit already. I am sure all churches have sincere believers but it doesn't mean the are correct or misguided. If you are Christian do you think other sincere believers in other faiths are misguided? I am not even sure what you believe about the bible because when I stated it in my words as I believe you see it you never let me know if I was right or wrong.