Literal/Original texts

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Do they actually have primary sources that date back to 70 A.D.?

No, but from what i am reading there are other historical writings that talk about that particular writing. i actually thought it was written later until i started looking... and page after pager after page about that book starts with lines like..

This is what Christian tradition has handed down, however, and to be fair, it’s a tradition that dates back pretty far — to the writings of Eusebius around the year 325. He, in turn, claimed to be relying upon work from an earlier writer, Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, (c. 60-130) who wrote about this around the year 120:

“Mark, having become Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately whatever he remembered of what was said or done by the Lord, however not in order.”

and there are things like this... http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/mark.html

[Steven]

So God literally condoned rape then...

I suppose thats a matter of opinon but if your asking Steven: yes. and it sucked.

now - in fairness Phee - as this historical text your quoting from refers specifically to the early generations of ancient Israel in pre-jerusalem times where they had not even yet established themselves as a solid fixed nation let alone moved toward fulfillemnt of Messianic prophesy - is this text saying:

"hey - STEVEN URENDA - CHRISTIAN IN GARDEN CITY - GO, RAPE, PILLAGE, AND PLUNDER IN MY NAME"

is this text instructing me to do this Phee?

does this text APPLY to me Phee?

and does this text present itself as THE WAY to be a Christian or follower of YHWH?

[torn asunder]

im not sure how to answer this Mike.

when you expereince peopel and events and especially spoken interaction, there is always a mixture of hard fact, literalism, generalities, and symbolism used. this is the human way.

you see your asking me to take a book containing thousands of years of human experience - and only approach it one way and Declare my method with a certain degree of rigidity. But I dont do that with anybody and neither do any of you. I struggle with that logic if thats what your asking me to do.

see you need to try to remember that I see this bible thign as a WHOLE lot more than rules and fables and parables. There is tremendous amounts of recorded history there - human history. I Have to use that lens as well.

i think what i'm getting at, is that you (and everyone, really) interpret the bible based solely on your own interpretation of it. you (and everyone) pick and choose what to take literally, and what to take as allegory, (wish i knew could think of another term to use for that...) , based on your own personal take on things. that's all i've ever been trying to say about any of this - that's it's entirely dependant upon the individual, and therefore, can't be presented as cold, hard truth, because truth depends on one's vantage point.

does that make any sense?

[Steven]

interesting!

ok, steven, here's the email i received - remember, it's a bit harsh, and sarcastic, but i think the point it makes is valid, relating to this idea - what do we take literally, and what is allegory, and how do we determine the difference?

ah the famous Dr Laura stuff.

i know this one very well, I thought you were gogin to use something else.

ok - this is what Im going to do - but not right now cause Im at work and about to get busted.

Im gogin to answer every single position in that email one by one with some depth. And I'll start up another thread to keep it streamlined called ANSWERS TO TORN ASUNDER.

its a good email to use - it will help me exemplify some thoughts, Ive no problem addressing it.

[phee]

I suppose thats a matter of opinon but if your asking Steven: yes. and it sucked.

now - in fairness Phee - as this historical text your quoting from refers specifically to the early generations of ancient Israel in pre-jerusalem times where they had not even yet established themselves as a solid fixed nation let alone moved toward fulfillemnt of Messianic prophesy - is this text saying:

"hey - STEVEN URENDA - CHRISTIAN IN GARDEN CITY - GO, RAPE, PILLAGE, AND PLUNDER IN MY NAME"

is this text instructing me to do this Phee?

does this text APPLY to me Phee?

and does this text present itself as THE WAY to be a Christian or follower of YHWH?

No I am not saying that you think it's OK... but the being you pray to thinks it is... but you are also saying that Gods principles change over time...

[Steven]

i think what i'm getting at, is that you (and everyone, really) interpret the bible based solely on your own interpretation of it. you (and everyone) pick and choose what to take literally, and what to take as allegory, (wish i knew could think of another term to use for that...) , based on your own personal take on things. that's all i've ever been trying to say about any of this - that's it's entirely dependant upon the individual, and therefore, can't be presented as cold, hard truth, because truth depends on one's vantage point.

does that make any sense?

no it makes ALOT of sense.

the only problem with the "individual" theory, si that there are millions of people who interpret it the same way I do, especially on the concrete foundational issues. So I dont know how to satisfy you in this regard...

[torn asunder]

I suppose thats a matter of opinon but if your asking Steven: yes. and it sucked.

now - in fairness Phee - as this historical text your quoting from refers specifically to the early generations of ancient Israel in pre-jerusalem times where they had not even yet established themselves as a solid fixed nation let alone moved toward fulfillemnt of Messianic prophesy - is this text saying:

"hey - STEVEN URENDA - CHRISTIAN IN GARDEN CITY - GO, RAPE, PILLAGE, AND PLUNDER IN MY NAME"

is this text instructing me to do this Phee?

does this text APPLY to me Phee?

and does this text present itself as THE WAY to be a Christian or follower of YHWH?

and this makes me think that the current society determines what is applicable truth in this, rather than the idea that the word of god is "the word of god", not to be bastardized/modified... it shows me that the interpretation of god's word is dependant upon the individual (or the society), and that it's not a universal truth which reaches across space and time universally. it's "designed" to apply to the time period in which it's being studied.

agree, or disagree?

[Steven]

No I am not saying that you think it's OK... but the being you pray to thinks it is... but you are also saying that Gods principles change over time...

man you have good questions today.

YES.

I beleive that his principles have changed over time.

MY principles have changed over time. maybe even some of yours?

theres even biblical writings of God changing his mind or being talked out of a certain something.

remember that we are supposedly created in his image - I think there are alot of parralels to draw from there. The main differene being - that I am not a finite being - and I lack universal authority and or power.

[Steven]

and this makes me think that the current society determines what is applicable truth in this, rather than the idea that the word of god is "the word of god", not to be bastardized/modified... it shows me that the interpretation of god's word is dependant upon the individual (or the society), and that it's not a universal truth which reaches across space and time universally. it's "designed" to apply to the time period in which it's being studied.

agree, or disagree?

overall Mike, I'd agree.

[torn asunder]

no it makes ALOT of sense.

the only problem with the "individual" theory, si that there are millions of people who interpret it the same way I do, especially on the concrete foundational issues. So I dont know how to satisfy you in this regard...

well, i personally explain that with the term "sheeple" - there aren't many who take the time to develop a personal interpretation, most people (in my experience) prefer to be spoon-fed their beliefs... it's just easier..

also, related to this, there may be millions who agree with you, but there are likely millions who don't, even if they subscribe to x-tianity. how does one reconcile that, in terms of biblical interpretation, and who's right or wrong?

[Pandora]

Wait wait... The Bible... should not be used at all when discussing... Christianity? Can we use the Quran, Torah, Talmud or Dead Sea Scrolls?

What exactly, that was written in Biblical times, can we use a point of referance?

BTW, The Book of Mark, according to historians, was most likely written in 70AD and was dictated by Peter. Thats only 40 years after Christ died, not 200.

You can use the bible as a text in talking about Christianity, but not as an entirely factual text.

[Steven]

You can use the bible as a text in talking about Christianity, but not as an entirely factual text.

your going to have to explain further - "factual" as relates to what?

the history of israel?

the alleged partriarichal events?

Im not sure that anybody is actualy even arguin with you Pandora.

[Pandora]

"I beleive that his principles have changed over time."

Really? I thought the god of christianity was omnipotent, if that god can see all then why would it ever allow such atrocities to happen. Free will? To what end? For enlightenment purposes? Somehow I doubt that comes as little comfort to the men and women who suffered the gross abuses found in the bible.

It still hasn't been answered why so much text was omitted from the bible. If it's divine then doesn't everything count? Wouldn't the Council have been guided by divinity instead of their own will?

On another note, what does it signify when the most important text of the Old Testament (10 Commandments) is a rip off of Hammurabi's code? And Noah's Ark being a retelling of the Epic of Gilgamesh? It's myth telling. Not fact.

[Steven]

well, i personally explain that with the term "sheeple" - there aren't many who take the time to develop a personal interpretation, most people (in my experience) prefer to be spoon-fed their beliefs... it's just easier..

also, related to this, there may be millions who agree with you, but there are likely millions who don't, even if they subscribe to x-tianity. how does one reconcile that, in terms of biblical interpretation, and who's right or wrong?

i actually think its way harder to be foon sped your beleifs - because you ahve to be able to stand up under testing, and you ahve to be able to be empowered by that which you cite as divinely inspired or its worthless....so in essence Mike Im agreeing with you - with the footnote that I am neither spoon fed nor a sheep, but I think you see that.

ok - so for your question:

first - as the APostle Paul wrote: "All men must work out their OWN salvation with much fear and trembling..."

I know who I am, what Im doing, why I am, where Im going, and what I need to do. I cant prove any of that, but I dont really need to. Not all beleivers unfortunately, can make this same claim, which saddens me but does not suprise me - because in ANY beleif system, there are your mavericks, your leaders, your sheeple if you will.....Christ himself said he would vomit them out of his mouth ..... there's nothing for me to reconcile as my focus is supposed to be MY walk with God and all that that might entail in response to that which I feel I may be called to.

[Rev.Reverence]

"I beleive that his principles have changed over time."

Really? I thought the god of christianity was omnipotent, if that god can see all then why would it ever allow such atrocities to happen. Free will? To what end? For enlightenment purposes? Somehow I doubt that comes as little comfort to the men and women who suffered the gross abuses found in the bible.

It still hasn't been answered why so much text was omitted from the bible. If it's divine then doesn't everything count? Wouldn't the Council have been guided by divinity instead of their own will?

On another note, what does it signify when the most important text of the Old Testament (10 Commandments) is a rip off of Hammurabi's code? And Noah's Ark being a retelling of the Epic of Gilgamesh? It's myth telling. Not fact.

I believe mans understanding of GOD evolves...

[Pandora]

I believe mans understanding of GOD evolves...

Ok, but based on what? The bible hasn't changed for hundreds of years, so what is used to evolve the understanding?

[Steven]

"I beleive that his principles have changed over time."

Really? I thought the god of christianity was omnipotent, if that god can see all then why would it ever allow such atrocities to happen. Free will? To what end? For enlightenment purposes? Somehow I doubt that comes as little comfort to the men and women who suffered the gross abuses found in the bible.

It still hasn't been answered why so much text was omitted from the bible. If it's divine then doesn't everything count? Wouldn't the Council have been guided by divinity instead of their own will?

On another note, what does it signify when the most important text of the Old Testament (10 Commandments) is a rip off of Hammurabi's code? And Noah's Ark being a retelling of the Epic of Gilgamesh? It's myth telling. Not fact.

Pandora,

your asking me to speak for "God" and force him into not only my own BOX, but yours. Not only do I not care to "satisfy" your logic, its not my place, and I could never do that. Free will to what end is only really suited to satsify what Pandora feels is suitable. I personally - have no issue with it. What does come as comfort to ANYBODY that has sufferred any tragedy at the hands of men Pandora - under ANY type of persecution or rhetoric or system of beleif? I cannot give you what you seek. I beleive free will is a grossly misunderstood provision, as it is viewed by both sides of teh coin in terms of mortal and divine - of whom both have different needs and desires and values.

what counts is what counts....Divine does not equate to good. Divine only really states a palce of orgin beyond our own. If therefore this text is divinely inspired - it is inspired to do the will of that which inspired it - thats all - and in this case I beleive that inspiration /cannonization was inspired to allow us to see him. After that - we all choose what we choose - thats free will also.

as for the ripping off thing - I asked you to give me more info - will you be doing that? and bear in mind that your declaring what is THE most important portion of the old testment - under what or who's authority do you declare this Pandora? I dont see the 10 commandments as THE most important portion of old testament. I dont see ANY of the old testment being more important than any other portion - why should I? Who decalres that this is the position to take? You said you know your bible.....in light of that maybe you will share with me what you think the purpose of those "Ten Words" of god are for, it would help me understand yo better.

Edit: I see that I wrote Bod instead of BOX. I fixy fixy

[Fierce Critter]

I've been reading all of this.

I've been talking privately with Steven about just this sort of thing.

I want to say this. Just as biblical text and how one fits it into their life is faith-based, so is dealing with people themselves.

I don't agree with Steven on everything he believes. I might even wish he felt differently.

But overall, I like Steven. I think he's got a very good head on his shoulders. I think that, perhaps, some people, and maybe even Steven, don't have a problem with certain "sheeple" tendencies. I think that this isn't always a bad thing.

One-on-one, I find dealing with "people like Steven" is painless. He believes what he believes, I believe what I believe, move past that and meet in the middle with the things we agree on and agree to disagree on the rest.

I do agree with the undercurrent of purpose of people like the person in the Dr. Laura e-mail, however, that in big groups, "people like Steven" can sway public opinion - based on something that is very heavily faith-based and may OR may not be fact-based. And that the direction they can sway people isn't neccesarily what I would consider a "good" direction (i.e. homosexuality). This is what I was referring to in another thread here when I say I'm sick of people treating written works of ANY kind as "law" rather than "inspiration."

Which leads me back to Steven. I think he's pretty well stated that he treats the bible at times as law, and at other times, as inspiration. And people can go on and on and on at him, seemingly trying to get him to say words to the literal effect of, "YES! I AM PICKING AND CHOOSING WHAT TO BELIEVE BASED ON WHAT DOES AND DOES NOT WORK FOR ME, AND IF IT DOESN'T WORK FOR YOU, I DON'T CARE AND YOU'RE THE ONE WHO IS DAMNED TO HELL."

Steven is not going to do that, folks. You can keep on at him like this, and he's not going to go there.

And I don't think it's fair to try to get him to. And I do believe that is what is going on here.

It's going to come off that way, anyway, since Steven is the "maverick Christian in residence" on DGN. So these threads are always going to be Steven by himself on the one side of the conversation, and Phee, Mike, Pandora, and sometimes even Critter on the other side.

A person I once knew, a girl who I thought was rather an air-head, was a bible reader. And I asked her once how she could treat as divine law something that is written and re-written by humans. Her simple response was, "that's where the faith comes in."

I couldn't argue with that. It was the smartest thing I've ever heard her say. And I don't think the answer is ever more complicated, or different than that.

I personally admire Steven his steadfastness in his faith. I might not agree with a lot of what he believes. But I don't feel I need to try to change it.

That's all these conversations really ever are. One side trying to get the other side to admit to something wrong or incorrect, and the other side trying to maintain their position.

Just some observations, that at this point, I'm not even sure why I'm posting this. Maybe it's because I don't like seeing Steven having to field and volley all this on his own. So I needed to say something in support.

<-- hitting the "add reply" button before I can change my mind and delete it all

[Steven]

God dangit I love that Camille girl .....

[torn asunder]

That's all these conversations really ever are. One side trying to get the other side to admit to something wrong or incorrect, and the other side trying to maintain their position.

well, i will say, for me it's not about trying to get him to admit to something he doesn't believe, it's more of 1) trying to understand where he's coming from, and 2) trying to get him to admit that other people don't necessarily see things his way - that x-tianity, while collectively similar, is open to interpretation by the individual/group/society that is working with it.

obviously, steven believes strongly, and is firm in his beliefs, and i applaud that! unfortunately, sometimes it comes across as steven (and some others) appearing to say "this is how it is, and is the only way it is", which i feel to be inaccurate.

do you (you too, steven) see where i'm coming from here? i hope so...

[Rev.Reverence]

well, i will say, for me it's not about trying to get him to admit to something he doesn't believe, it's more of 1) trying to understand where he's coming from, and 2) trying to get him to admit that other people don't necessarily see things his way - that x-tianity, while collectively similar, is open to interpretation by the individual/group/society that is working with it.

obviously, steven believes strongly, and is firm in his beliefs, and i applaud that! unfortunately, sometimes it comes across as steven (and some others) appearing to say "this is how it is, and is the only way it is", which i feel to be inaccurate.

do you (you too, steven) see where i'm coming from here? i hope so...

I like to study the differences between the different religious views... I tend to mush them all together and sythysize my own way to the divine seat...

[Steven]

well, i will say, for me it's not about trying to get him to admit to something he doesn't believe, it's more of 1) trying to understand where he's coming from, and 2) trying to get him to admit that other people don't necessarily see things his way - that x-tianity, while collectively similar, is open to interpretation by the individual/group/society that is working with it.

obviously, steven believes strongly, and is firm in his beliefs, and i applaud that! unfortunately, sometimes it comes across as steven (and some others) appearing to say "this is how it is, and is the only way it is", which i feel to be inaccurate.

do you (you too, steven) see where i'm coming from here? i hope so...

I get this.

I dont really see (big suprise) how I do this though on spiritual matters: "this is how it is, and is the only way it is"

[Rev.Reverence]

Ok, but based on what? The bible hasn't changed for hundreds of years, so what is used to evolve the understanding?

Do you think the Bible is the only set of books that mankind has ever penned on religion???

hahahahaha

Rig Veda, Upanishads, Kama Sutra, Dhammapada,

Bhagavad-Gita, Shiva Sanhita,Hathayoga PropadiKa,

FROM THE EAST

__________________________________________________________________

Oracles of Zoroaster, ALL the Greek philosophers,

Golden Verses of Pythagorus (everybody knows this cat from math class, but few realize he led a religious movement as well)

The pre-Abrahamic spiritual ways of our European ancestors, that were nearly lost but were handed down through the ages in story and song....

____________________________________________________________________

AND...what about the people in this world that could not wright words until very recently...

in, Africa, South America, North America, Australia.....

_____________________________________________________________________

How about the 'NEW' religions??? Those that MIX the Wisdom of Ages.

THELEMA, Rastafarianalism, WICCA, Scientology, KABALLAH, T.O.P.I., Baha'i, Khaosifers...

All crack-pots? Are you going to research ALL of them? Just to disprove God?

What about the bits of all these things I mentioned, and more, what about where they AGREE?

I have read literally hundreds of books, and talked to at least double the amount of people and I see a pattern.

I see a pattern...

I see a pattern......

[torn asunder]

Do you think the Bible is the only set of books that mankind has ever penned on religion???

hahahahaha

Rig Veda, Upanishads, Karma Sutra, Dhammapada,

Bhagavad-Gita, Shiva Sanhita,Hathayoga PropadiKa,

FROM THE EAST

__________________________________________________________________

Oracles of Zoroaster, ALL the Greek philosophers,

Golden Verses of Pythagorus (everybody knows this cat from math class, but few realize he led a religious movement as well)

The pre-Abrahamic spiritual ways of our European ancestors, that were nearly lost but were handed down through the ages in story and song....

____________________________________________________________________

AND...what about the people in this world that could not wright words until very recently...

in, Africa, South America, North America, Australia.....

_____________________________________________________________________

How about the 'NEW' religions??? Those that MIX the Wisdom of Ages.

THELEMA, Rastafarianalism, WICCA, Scientology, KABALLAH, T.O.P.I., Baha'i, Khaosifers...

All crack-pots? Are you going to research ALL of them? Just to disprove God?

What about the bits of all these things I mentioned, and more, what about where they AGREE?

I have read literally hundreds of books, and talked to at least double the amount of people and I see a pattern.

I see a pattern...

I see a pattern......

problem with this is, if you're a devout follower of your faith, you're not typically encouraged to (and quite often discouraged from) exploring other religions, so many adherents won't be able/willing to explore these in any depth.

and btw, it's kama sutra, i believe...

[torn asunder]

I get this.

I dont really see (big suprise) how I do this though on spiritual matters: "this is how it is, and is the only way it is"

you don't, directly, but it does manage to come across this way, to at least a few people... it's cool, though!