So for my birtday (I turn 25 tommorow!! Yay insurance break!), I asked for an NIV study bible because the only bible I had up until then was the King James version, and unfortunately I have never been able to read it all the way through the way I have trouble paying attention to Tolkien books long enough to stay interested.
So anyway, I cracked it open last night, and I read the pre-face to Genesis, and the first chapter (which really isn't all that much, but this is before sleep reading, so leave me alone ).
And just from that little tid bit, I am highly impressed with all of the extra information that they have provided right along with the books. For instance, I was not fully aware the Moses is thought to be the author of the first 5 books of the OT, which started spurring lots of questions in my head while I was reading it.
I was already aware of the parallels between genesis and other pagan stories of creation, such as world changing floods, and such. So this got me to thinking that if Moses did really write these while he was wandering the desert for 40 years, it seems to me he was trying to put together a history for his people that was similar to what they had known before but was more of a "this is what god told me those events really were".
To me it still points to Moses being a leader among people and changing existing doctrines to match those of his own (or his God's) ideas so that people can easily adopt his Ideas... Kind of like how the sabbath falls on a sunday, but sunday was also the pagan day for their religion in tribute to the sun (if I remember correctly please let me know if I am wrong).
Anyway, it is all really interesting, I can't wait to read the rest of the first five books so I can try to figure out who Moses really was, and what he had to go through to get people to follow him.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I really like the NIV version, and I find lots of ministers use that version in sermons.
I personally mostly use my "New King James" version, though, and I like it a lot too.
Farmgirl
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The Jewish Sabbath is Saturday, the last day of the week. The earliest Christians observed the Sabbath on the last day of the week, and then gathered to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus on the first day of the new week, Sunday. Eventually, as Christianity moved away from its Jewish roots, the two were combined. So I don’t think you can make a case for Moses reinterpreting “Sun-day.” But congrats on the new Bible, and on thinking stuff through!
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
The Sabbath falls on a Saturday in Jewish (and Seventh Day Adventist) tradition. It was moved to Sunday in Orthodox Christian tradition when Constantine made Christianity the state religion of Rome. The given reason was to honor Jesus's resurrection, though many have speculated it was precisely what you are citing here... an attempt to ease the conversion of Pagans by aligning with their practices.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Moses didn't make Sunday the sabbath. Neither did Jesus. Neither did Peter or Paul or James. Constantine made Sunday the sabbath, because his religion, up until his conversion on the deathbed, was worship of the sun-god, and he used his own influence when helping the Christian leaders of his time get Christianity to be a more mainstream religion.
Moses also didn't write the Torah (first seven books of the Christian Old Testament). They were put to writing later. Most of the Hebrew texts we have today, not just the biblical ones, are the result of being written down later after centuries of oral tradition. This doesn't mean they are any less accurate, it just means that they weren't written by someone sitting at a table with G-d whispering in their ear. Moses, though, is credited with putting at least the first five books, I believe, to writing from oral history.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: The "traditional" Jewish belief on the five books of Moses (the Torah) is that they were given to Moses verbatim by God at Mt Sinai, as described in Exodus 19.
*cough* Well . . . not necessarily. Because then you get issues of Moses having written down events decades before they happened. So while that opinion does exist, I believe the more commonly accepted view among traditional Jewish scholars is: God dictated to Moshe all of Genesis and the first part of the book of Exodus at Sinai; the remaining 3-and-a-fraction books were dictated (by God) and written (by Moses) piece by piece over the next 40 years.
Posted by Chaz_King (Member # 3184) on :
hah I love it!
Thanks for the replies on the origins of sabbath changing to sunday also, I was going off of what I could remember hearing but wasn't sure if I was recalling it correctly.
I think the main thing for me is that I am a monotheist of sorts, and I am reading this as if though it is a compilation of somewhat historical documents written from different people and time periods. So when I am reading through this I am not taking it from the perspective that the bible is complete fact and infallable (sp?), but more that it is definately written by people that weren't neccesarily divinly isnpired, but had these ideas and wrote them down and preached them to others.
Of course that may all change as I read through it all more, but I am trying to treat it as an examination of history, and the authors more than a plan for myself to follow. I figure if I can figure out the motives of the authors then I will be able to gain more understanding about why the books say what they do.
The ultimate goal being for me to do this with the Bible, the koran, the Tao Te Ching, and maybe the other religous texts if I get around to it before my brain falls out of my ear
Edit: I was actually thinking of getting a couple of my buddies who actually go to church to start doing a weekly review of a couple chapters at a time. And the more I read on here and the more I think about it, the more I think it would be a good idea
[ July 06, 2004, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Chaz_King ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:*cough* Well . . . not necessarily. Because then you get issues of Moses having written down events decades before they happened. So while that opinion does exist, I believe the more commonly accepted view among traditional Jewish scholars is: God dictated to Moshe all of Genesis and the first part of the book of Exodus at Sinai; the remaining 3-and-a-fraction books were dictated (by God) and written (by Moses) piece by piece over the next 40 years.
I've gotten similar accounts from non-Jewish scholarly sources that pretty much agree. About the only real differences would be Mt Horab (I think) instead of Sinai, but the timeline of things being written down how rivka explains is pretty much spot-on. Otherwise, Moses was able to see in the future. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Horeb is another name for Sinai.
And Moses could see the future. Some of it, at least. He was a prophet, and some of his prophecies do predict future events. But writing down details in advance would cause serious free-will issues, regardless of what he knew and when he knew it.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: Constantine made Sunday the Sabbath
Sorry, but this just ain’t so. Constantine did issue a proclamation that all soldiers must worship on the first day of the week, but that was already the day that Christians were celebrating the eucharist. There is a hint of this already in Acts 20, but it definitely was Sunday by the time Justin Martyr was writing (around 155 AD, a good 150 years before the reign of Constantine.)
[ July 06, 2004, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Gryphonesse (Member # 6651) on :
well at least, if you're going the historical route, you can trash the King James version. That's the worst possible version, in my opinion. New Jerusalem is decent for studying and history. Keep in mind also that the bible is a compilation, written down when the history tradtions were primarily oral. That, and the face that it was most certainly NOT written in Hey Bob English and you're reading the results of several hundreds of years and personalities' interpretations.
I spent quite a bit of time on this in college and minored in theology. One of my Pet Peeves is people who interpret the bible literally without taking into account its history.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Sorry, but this just ain’t so. Constantine did issue a proclamation that all soldiers must worship on the first day of the week, but that was already the day that Christians were celebrating the eucharist. There is a hint of this already in Acts 20, but it definitely was Sunday by the time Justin Martyr was writing (around 155 AD, a good 150 years before the reign of Constantine.)
Yes, it is so. There was no eucharist until the Roman Christians implemented it, and the habit of meeting on Sundays was not considered sabbath by Christians at all, it was celebrated as the day Christ supposedly rose. Constantine is the one who changed the practice of the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday with a law, not a proclamation. The only Christian organized church to not change the sabbath to Sunday was the Eastern Orthodox church. However, the changing of sabbath from Saturday to Sunday is a result of Constantine.
And Moses could see the future. Some of it, at least. He was a prophet, and some of his prophecies do predict future events. But writing down details in advance would cause serious free-will issues, regardless of what he knew and when he knew it.
Okay, I wasn't sure about that name (Horeb), so thanks for the info. As for the rest, that is more a matter of faith, which I really can't (and won't) dispute. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You will notice I qualified "commonly accepted." There was a reason for that. Posted by Shepherdess (Member # 6115) on :
What about the last bit of Deuteronomy (which describes Moses' death)? Whom do scholars believe wrote that?
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I really prefer new king james to NIV, but study bibles really are helpful. If you want a wide variety of bibles and recources is the way to go, the libronix system is great
[ July 06, 2004, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Lupus ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:I have a lot of trouble using the phrase "commonly accepted view" when discussing Jewish scholarship, hence my placement of the word "traditional" in quotes. The view I described is what I learned in high school, when I got the majority of my Orthodox education.
I have a lot of trouble with your use of the word "traditional," since you are citing your high school education as the basis, and I am citing my own college "traditional" education, as well as other scholarly sources, all of whom agree with the basic timeline rivka mentioned (even if not the spiritual aspects).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There was no eucharist until the Roman Christians implemented it, and the habit of meeting on Sundays was not considered sabbath by Christians at all, it was celebrated as the day Christ supposedly rose.
If by "Roman Christians" you mean post-Constantine conversion, you're off by a wide margin. See this link:
quote:Other titles are used, such as "Lord's Supper" (Coena Domini), "Table of the Lord" (Mensa Domini), the "Lord's Body" (Corpus Domini), and the "Holy of Holies" (Sanctissimum), to which may be added the following expressions, and somewhat altered from their primitive meaning: "Agape" (Love-Feast), "Eulogia" (Blessing), "Breaking of Bread", "Synaxis" (Assembly), etc.; but the ancient title "Eucharistia" appearing in writers as early as Ignatius, Justin, and Irenæus, has taken precedence in the technical terminology of the Church and her theologians.
Note Justin's conversion date of 100 AD. If you mean Eucharist was something unique to the Roman Christian church of Justin's time, you're mistaken. Although the current form of the celebration traces through that route, the earliest Christian Churches all fulfilled Christ's command at the Last Supper by carrying out the substantively same sacrifice and sacrament as the current Eucharist.
Dagonee
[ July 06, 2004, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:If by "Roman Christians" you mean post-Constantine conversion, you're off by a wide margin. See this link:
No, I mean the pre-Constantine Christians of Rome, of which there were many. Yes, Ignatius used the term "eucharista" and later saints (like Augustine) actually created "official" sacraments along those lines, but they were not used widespread or came around the same time of Constantine's rule, when he held more than one council to unify all of the different various practices under a single church structure. At the same time, there were some churches who disagreed with the consensus, and they were ostracized (or worse). The plain truth is that there were no common "traditional" practices among these early Christian groups, because there were very few common threads among the many regional groups of Christians before they were centralized.
As for the link, it very clearly makes a point to deny any common string between traditions like the eucharist and Persian, Greek, and other Arabic traditions outside of "they were similar but not related." However, none of the practices that made their way to the Councils that established the RC Church were common anywhere except where the people of different regions (and different religious backgrounds) were converting, just as how the many demon names and some saints did not show up until after the Roman Catholic Church began spreading to other post-Roman areas of Europe (after the fall of the empire), where demons had strikingly close names to pagan gods and saints had similar stories to pagan mythos.
It's not accidental or coincidental. It also doesn't invalidate Christianity or the Roman Catholic Church. It just points to origins of some practices, which is not a bad thing.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
MY favorite translation is actually the NASB - it claims to be a word-for-word translation, whereas the NIV is mostly a 'thought for thought' translation - thought not nearly as loose as the New Living Translation, which is just a step below a paraphrase (it's the revision of the Paraphrase Bible 'The Living Bible'). NRSV has some great renderings, as well.
The zondervan Study Bible series (that your NIV study Bible is a part of - I own it) also is available in the NASB and KJV translations - same notes, just adapted for the different wordings. Fabulous resource, and the Zondervan NIV Study Bible was the first Bible that allowed me to actually push thorugh Genesis - Revelation.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
I still love the KJV. I really, really do. It tells me what I need to know from the Bible, and it does so in a beautiful way.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Isaiah is tough enough for me without 17th Century English archaisms in there to throw me off
But yeah, the KJV has some lovely renderings. Plus it's the only translation that features Unicorns Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: What about the last bit of Deuteronomy (which describes Moses' death)? Whom do scholars believe wrote that?
Shepherdess, there are two opinions discussed by the Sages about those final 8 verses: Yehoshua bin Nun wrote it after Moshe died; or God dictated them just before Moshe's death, and he wrote the final verses with tears rather than ink.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I like the verse in Numbers 12:3 where it states that Moses is the most humble man who ever walked the earth. Is this viewed as being a later insertian (perhaps by Joshua), or was this dictated to Moses, and he was just like, "Aww, Gawsh, YHWH! Don't make me put that!" And God was like, "See? there you go again, being all humble. It's not like you're writing this book. Put it in."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*laugh* I wasn't there, but I think when God is dictating, you generally don't argue with His word choices. Posted by Tzadik (Member # 5825) on :
quote: Yes, it is so. There was no eucharist until the Roman Christians implemented it, and the habit of meeting on Sundays was not considered sabbath by Christians at all, it was celebrated as the day Christ supposedly <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=rose&v=56">rose</a>. Constantine is the one who changed the practice of the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday with a <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=law&v=56">law</a>, not a proclamation. The only Christian organized church to not change the sabbath to Sunday was the Eastern Orthodox church. However, the changing of sabbath from Saturday to Sunday is a result of Constantine.
Jutsa -
I think dkw is right - we have an evidence in the Scripture that first christians met on the first day of the week (day after jewish sabath - what we call Sunday) in order to "break bread" (Acts 20:7). And it is generally accepted, that the term "breaking of bread" in context of the New Testament means "the Lord's supper - eucharist, whatever we call it".
It was the jewish christians who observed both, the Sabath and the First day of the week - just like some of "messianic jewish communities" do to this day.
Constantin proclaimed First day of the week the day of Sun (if I am correct) and it was meant to be the day of rest - it sure enough was the same day that Christians observed as the day of "breaking the bread" for almost 300 years already.
Yeah, NIV study bible is very good - but word of advice - the translation is sometimes not that great. I'd use New American Standard as well - it is believed to be one of the best translations from the original texts. According to my teacher and I do also find it more accurate.
[ July 07, 2004, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: Tzadik ]
Posted by Shepherdess (Member # 6115) on :
Thanks rivka--that makes sense.
Speaking of translations, I grew up on the KJV, and I think it is certainly the most beautiful English translation. Some of the poetry, particularly the Psalms, loses something in the other translations. The scholarship of the translators in the 16th and 17th centuries was superior to what we have today, in my opinion. Many of the translators at that time had learned Greek and Hebrew as children. That being said, I know the NIV and NASB are more accessible to most readers today. I've also read the New King James, and I like it best of the modern translations, probably because the word flow is very similar to the 1611 KJV, but some of the more archaic word choices have been changed.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Song of Solomon is also an example of verse that just sounds so poetic in the KJV... <sigh>
My personal favorite Bible verse: Hebrews 13:2
Farmgirl
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Actually, the KJV is generally considered one of the most suspect translations, scholarship-wise, of all the current common ones. It is also considered one of the most beautiful too.
-Bok
[ July 07, 2004, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Tzadik (Member # 5825) on :
KJV is a beautiful translation (although rather difficult to read for non native english speakers as me )
However, it is not the most accurate translation, I'd say. Especially knowing, that the most of the ancient manuscripts were found in 20th century. So the translators of KJV and "other older bible translation" did not have the "newest" information available. Think NASB reflects the information in those manuscripts.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Gah!
quote:I think dkw is right - we have an evidence in the Scripture that first christians met on the first day of the week (day after jewish sabath - what we call Sunday) in order to "break bread" (Acts 20:7).
No, we don't "have evidence" that all the Christians did that, because they didn't. We have evidence that in a few places, they observed both, and in a few places, they observed only the Sabbath. It wasn't until Constantine made it a law that Sunday became the official sabbath of the Christian church. Pointing out a few places where they did does not make it applicable to all of the many different Christian sects that were around then. Most of the sects ceased to exist after Constantine for just this reason—they disagreed with the "laws" that were made for this new, official Christian church.
quote:And it is generally accepted, that the term "breaking of bread" in context of the New Testament means "the Lord's supper - eucharist, whatever we call it".
I don't know what scholarly circles you travel in, but if by your definition "breaking bread" is practicing the eucharist, then Jesus himself was performing the eucharist with bankers and sinners and many other types long before the last supper, because "breaking of bread" shows up a lot in various forms throughout the New Testament.
The reality is that breaking bread is another way of saying "eating." While you may apply different meanings to the terms—many people do—that doesn't give them mystical properties in anything but your own belief. Heck, different people must have been performing the eucharist years before Jesus, too. "breaking bread" appears often enough in the Old Testament as well.
[ July 07, 2004, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Jutsa Notha Name ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I love the KJV as well, especially the Gospels. The phrasing is beautiful.
However, my Oxford Study Bible really opens up difficult books like Job and Isaiah. I really appreciate some of the different perspectives it brings, and especially the clear language.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
The Oxford Study Bible is in the NRSV (New Revised Standard), right?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
*shrug*
That I don't know.
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
You know, the most entertaining biblical and historical discussions are those where neither side fully understands the issues at hand. But the ones where only one side is hopelessly off are fun too.
[ July 07, 2004, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Lissande ]
Posted by Shepherdess (Member # 6115) on :
Lissande, So, are you going to enlighten us? Or just be entertained by us? Please elaborate Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Yeah, Lissande...
Are you thinking what I'm thinking? Posted by Tzadik (Member # 5825) on :
quote: No, we don't "have evidence" that all the Christians did that, because they didn't. We have evidence that in a few places, they observed both, and in a few places, they observed only the Sabbath. It wasn't until Constantine made it a law that Sunday became the official sabbath of the Christian church. Pointing out a few places where they did does not make it applicable to all of the many different Christian sects that were around then. Most of the sects ceased to exist after Constantine for just this reason—they disagreed with the "laws" that were made for this new, official Christian church.
Christian sects? What christian sects are you talking about in time span of 30 years after death of Christ?
And, by the way, can you show me in the text of Constantin's decree where it exactely says Sunday is the day of worship? Can't really find it there:
quote:"Let all judges and all city people and all tradesmen rest upon the venerable day of the sun. But let those dwelling in the country freely and with full liberty attend to the culture of their fields; since it frequently happens that no other day is so fit for the sowing of grain, or the planting of vines; hence, the favorable time should not be allowed to pass, lest the provisions of heaven be lost." -- Given the seventh of March, Crispus and Constantine being consuls, each for the second time. A.D. 321.
and to:
quote:I don't know what scholarly circles you travel in, but if by your definition "breaking bread" is practicing the eucharist, then Jesus himself was performing the eucharist with bankers and sinners and many other types long before the last supper, because "breaking of bread" shows up a lot in various forms throughout the New Testament.
The reality is that breaking bread is another way of saying "eating." While you may apply different meanings to the terms—many people do—that doesn't give them mystical properties in anything but your own belief. Heck, different people must have been performing the eucharist years before Jesus, too. "breaking bread" appears often enough in the Old Testament as well
So, what exactely Paul speaks about in 1 Cor 11:19 and following? The "breaking of bread" in that context is just a meal? Isn't he saying that you should not feast when you gather together as you usually do? No, he's giving them example set by the Lord Jesus, isn't he?
Not really sure why are you speaking of OT when I made a reference to NT - notably part begining with Acts. And is true - Jesus himself did gave us an example of what we call "The Lord's supper" - didn't he met with his beloved one the night he was betrayed and didn't he break the bread and gave them to eat, took cup and gave them to drink? And as Paul says in 1 Cor 11 - we are to do that in rememeberance of Jesus' deed?
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
Shepherdess, I don't need to enlighten anyone, since, according to my previous post, I agree with one of the positions on this thread (to remove suspense, it's the position espoused by dkw and Tzadik that Constantine did not revolutionize Christian practice in the stated ways by his decrees). He didn't make Christianity the state religion; he just made everything else illegal. Popcorn and 3D glasses are therefore all that's required to watch the festivities.
Mabus, probably. I'm thinking that at the very least we're working with a very different conception of what "Sabbath," "eucharist," and "breaking bread" mean. You can declare Sunday a day of rest all you want, but that doesn't change when the Sabbath, the day in Genesis when the Lord rested after Creation, is. Christians don't have the authority to do that. It just means that those Christians rest on Sunday and call it a Sabbath, while Jews and others rest the day before, on the Sabbath. Some people call Sunday the Sabbath, but in my opinion it is a gross misapplication of the term based on a misunderstanding of what the Sabbath is.
The only way you can say Rome invented the Eucharist is if your definition of "eucharist" is "a lot of ceremony and pomp involving a priest and wafer." In that sense you might have an argument, in that neither when Jesus instituted his memorial nor when it was practiced for the first few centuries was there a priest or elaborate ceremony involved. But to say that Rome invented the memorial is silly, as there are reams of textual evidence from the Bible, outside Christian writings, and outside non-Christian writings that it was practiced from the first century on. I've just read a book on the subject.
And everybody knows that in the Bible, sometimes "breaking bread" refers to a normal meal, sometimes it refers to a fellowship meal of Christians (the agape feast), and sometimes it refers to the Lord's Supper, and you have to go with context to know which is which. It is fairly clear, for example, that the text in 1 Corinthians is not talking about an everyday meal.
We're just coming from two different perspectives, I think.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
That's a lot of smiling, Lissa...I don't trust people who smile that much. Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:We're just coming from two different perspectives, I think.
Yes, except I'm not laughing at or using a rolling-around graemlin in a mocking manner towards different perspectives like you are. It's not a coincidence that your "version" requires some things to be interpreted in a specific way, as do others (like "breaking bread"). Oh well. I won't argue against your faith, and if believing those things is what you need to sustain it, far be it from me to give you the information I have that would alter it. However, I will point out that having special conditions like "sometimes they mean this and sometimes they mean that" with something like the eucharist, or "we may look at the Sabbath in a different way" when referring to being Saturday or Sunday, is not a reasonable explanation. The Sabbath is the Jewish Shabbat, there is really no other reasonable definition—until a Christian law is made to change that. Before such a time, there are groups who gathered on the day after and celebrated their Christ rising and ate together, a habit which developed into what was officialized as the eucharist. I also find it amusing how you are very willing to take a large berth with meaning with some words (sabbath, eucharist), but then demand an exact phrasing for others to be accepted (Constantine's Blue Law, for example).
quote:So, what exactely Paul speaks about in 1 Cor 11:19 and following? The "breaking of bread" in that context is just a meal? Isn't he saying that you should not feast when you gather together as you usually do? No, he's giving them example set by the Lord Jesus, isn't he?
Not really sure why are you speaking of OT when I made a reference to NT - notably part begining with Acts. And is true - Jesus himself did gave us an example of what we call "The Lord's supper" - didn't he met with his beloved one the night he was betrayed and didn't he break the bread and gave them to eat, took cup and gave them to drink? And as Paul says in 1 Cor 11 - we are to do that in rememeberance of Jesus' deed?
I don't know where in this thread you made references to the New Testament before I made any references, unless you were posting under a different name. If so, don't expect me to be able to keep track of those without knowing who they are.
Jesus did a lot of things, and some of them are copied in a figurative fashion, some in a literal one. Gee... who decided which was to be which?
And 1 Corinthians chapter 11? Yeah, Paul also says that a woman who prays without her head covered is a disgrace, and should have her head shaved. In the previous chapter he basically tells the Corinthians—whom this letter was supposedly addressed to—to basically not worry about the laws of Israel, because they were done to make the Israelites worthy (what, gentiles were already worthy?).
The point (and problem with pointing to single verses or even single chapters) is that it is rarely contextual, and unless it is at least generally accepted that things like Paul's letters to specific churchs apply to everyone everywhere with the same import, which would commonly take faith that he was a prophet of his god, then it is just a saying taken out of context.
Otherwise, what if I pointed out the sayings of the prophet Muhammad, where he says that calling Jesus a divine being is an insult to his god? Should I expect you to simply take it as a fact and Truth, because someone else who was inspired of their god said so? It is enough if you already believe, but "because <whomever> said so" is just as inefficient as the parent who uses the same line when lacking any other reason.
quote:What christian sects are you talking about in time span of 30 years after death of Christ?
How about sects like the Ebionites? Also, it should be noted that until Paul came along, the followers of Christ were a strictly Jewish sect, with each of their regional differences, as well (Galillean, Judean, Nazorean, etc.). With the exception of the Nazorean Essenes, who basically took much of the theology of the Essenes (a Jewish sect), practically the whole of the Essenes were wiped out by Rome. There are lots of non-biblical accounts dating back to that first century, most notably within the Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls), that tell of different sects during the first century.
This is just one of the major issues I have regarding the contextual accuracy of citing only the New Testament, which I believe was not only recorded, but assembled in its current "canon" condition (leaving out reams of other early Christian texts), under (sometimes nominally) biased (sometimes dubious) circumstances and excluding many actual influential events.
For example, I can find no evidence of Herod's mass-murder proclamation against first-borns outside of biblical account. I'm not saying Herod was in any way an innocent—he was known for being a Roman appeaser and Jew only in token—but even with reports of his mad years prior to his death, I can't find anything non-biblical to back it up. What I can find is that Herod died in 4 BCE, the same year Jesus was born. I can also find that Herod's death created rebellion in the whole region, with riotous uprisings occurring in many cities. Richard Horsley and Asher Silberman, in The Message and the Kingdom, write:
quote:“The Roman armies had swept through many of the towns and villages of the country, raping, killing, and destroying nearly everything in sight. In Galilee, all centers of rebellion were brutally suppressed; the rebel-held town of Sepphoris was burned to the ground, and all its surviving inhabitants were sold into slavery.”
In Jerusalem, rebels had taken charge for a brief time, and the Romans executed almost every one of them (the rebels), numbered somewhere around two thousand, according to Josephus in Jewish Antiquities:
quote:“Those who appeared to be the less turbulent individuals he imprisoned... the most culpable, in number about two thousand, he crucified.”
And yet no account of Herod ordering a massive number of children killed. Also, these atrocities performed by the Roman military upon the Jews is not recorded in the bible. Only the Jewish leader is accounted as having committed mass murder at this time in New Testament history.
Another example is Pontius Pilate himself. When judging from the biblical account of Pilate, he seems to be dismissive and just with the Jews (and Jesus). However, according to the writings of (Flavius) Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, he was much more threatening and ruthless. Pilate threatened to kill the Jews of Jerusalem for complaining that they were offended by the hanging of images of the Ceasar (the "divine emperor") next to a temple when he moved to Jerusalem. He had any objectors beaten when they complained about him taking a temple treasure (qorban) from them to have an aqueduct built. Jews objected to his placing commemorative shields in the palace of Herod that had questionable inscriptions on them, and he didn't remove them until forced to by his superiors. He was finally removed 6 years after Christ's death, due to complaints about his treatment of the region under his command. But according to the bible, this is the same man who didn't flinch when it was brought to his attention that Jesus was claiming a higher authority than the Roman Ceasar. Instead, blame is placed squarely on the shoulders of the Jews for his crucifixion, not in the hands of the one man who not only has his only historical mentions by other sources as being ruthless and demanding of the Jews, but was the only leader in Judea who could authorize a death sentence (especially the very Roman sentence of crucifixion). Tacitus, in his book Annals, places Pilate in direct connection with the crucifixion:
quote:Christus, the founder of that name, was put to death as a criminal by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the reign of Tiberius, but the pernicious superstition - repressed for a time, broke out yet again, not only through Judea, - where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, whither all things horrible and disgraceful flow from all quarters, as to a common receptacle, and where they are encouraged.
Notice it doesn't say "put to death by the Jews." So yes, I guess it does matter whether or not you have decided to place faith in the bible as the unquestionably correct account or not. What I take exception with is your laughing at me for not having your faith.
I won't even get into the often-discussed Peter-Paul schism. All I'll say is that it is not a coincidence that, before Paul, Christianity was a sect of Judaism and not a separate religion. When Nero blamed "Christians" for burning down Rome, he was blaming a Jewish sect that was already looked down on by much of the mainstream Hebrew community, for an easy (and believable) target (after all, they're strange and different, they must be evil!).
So, am I still making all of this up? Am I still something for you to laugh at and mock with the "popcorn and 3D glasses" comments? Or are you willing to accept that I know of the references you are making, and feel that claiming "it's in the bible, it must be true" is simply not a good enough argument to convince me, especially considering secular and apocryphal sources that often counter or contradict them?
Honestly, even though rivka attributed faith to certain aspects of her account, you'll notice I didn't laugh at her because she believes differently (and still feel bad for using a link that makes her uncomfortable in a different thread). At least the factual parts not only make sense, but are consistent. I can allow for faith, but not when it's inconsistent. Even then, if I don't accept it, I still won't laugh at it and mock it.
And because of that, I think I'm gonna opt out of this "discussion."
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Well, so much for responding, then. And here I had it all planned out. *sigh*
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Ahem...uh...
sorry to interrupt, but I was just wanting to agree with Farmgirl about NKJV.
*scurries away*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Gotta love people who opt out of a discussion right after making a very long post.
Oh, and Mabus, I'd like to see your response.
Dagonee
[ July 08, 2004, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Gotta love people who make snide comments about others' character.
Mabus, you can reply, I just refuse to take part in a conversation where I'm being laughed at and made fun of / mocked because someone disagrees. At least rivka responded to me intelligently and without trace of malice. So did Dagonee's first response to me (though the latest contradicts the earlier civility). Tzadik did as well. However, once it became a "I laugh at those things I don't agree with because of faith" argument, it went out of my territory to dispute. I won't take part in theological pissing matches. People will believe what people will believe, just as it is their right to.
And I noticed that the bottom half of my post is midirected. It should be going to Tzadik.
[ July 08, 2004, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Jutsa Notha Name ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, I thought that was pretty civil considering you delivered a point-by-point refutation on a controversial topic and then seemingly announced your intention to not consider anyone's response. "Last word" syndrome is never pretty.
Dagonee
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: I won't take part in theological pissing matches.
It makes more sense to post something like this INSTEAD of a long rant...or someone will call shenanigans.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
You are correct, PSI. I stand corrected, and should have known better from the start. Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Awww, you make me feel bad. You're supposed to argue so it will be more fun. Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
I'm sorry, JNN. I certainly didn't mean to come across as malicious; popcorn and 3D glasses are a long-running convention with me here, though I suppose it was too long ago for you to remember probably. I do feel that your understanding of the issues discussed is from a very different perspective from Tzadik's, mine and I imagine dkw's, and your conclusions are therefore colored by your different understanding, coming, as it seems to me from some of your comments, rather from the outside. I am sorry I offended you, and I will try not to do it again.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
(Addit: Lissa, feel free to correct me if you think I have misrepresented your position or that of Churches of Christ, generally speaking. I am trying not to portray myself as an expert or authority--just someone who thinks he sees a misunderstanding going on.)
quote:Yes, except I'm not laughing at or using a rolling-around graemlin in a mocking manner towards different perspectives like you are.
I can't say for sure whether Lissa meant to mock people, but I doubt it. And I certainly didn't mean it that way. These are issues that were hashed out by the Churches of Christ quite some time ago, and it's amusing to see the argument being repeated. That's all I find funny.
quote:"we may look at the Sabbath in a different way" when referring to being Saturday or Sunday, is not a reasonable explanation. The Sabbath is the Jewish Shabbat, there is really no other reasonable definition—until a Christian law is made to change that.
Unless I have seriously misunderstood, I think Lissande said basically what you did. "we may look at the Sabbath in a different way" is a polite way of saying "I disagree with you", not "It doesn't matter about the Sabbath". To the best of my knowledge, this is a subject all of the Churches of Christ agree on: the Sabbath is the Sabbath; It is not Sunday; No human law can change that, "Christian" or not; However, the Sabbath has been abrogated by divine law in the New Testament. Since you seem to have issues with Paul, I can guess that you would disagree with the last part, but the rest is not fundamentally different from what you said, so far as I can tell. We have no disagreement on the existence of Constantine's Blue Law--only on whether it had any spiritual validity.
Next you mention some discussion about I Corinthians and how it relates to passages about "breaking bread".
I'm having trouble following the argument about the Eucharist/Lord's Supper, since it seems to me as if some of you are changing sides. It certainly looks to me as if "breaking bread" is often used in the Bible to describe the Lord's Supper following its use in the context of the Last Supper. If you are saying that these uses are post-dated by later, suspect authors, then I doubt I can convince you otherwise. If you are saying that this is simply a misinterpretation of the term "breaking bread", it will take me some time to review the passages in question; work is interfering.
Lastly, you have some material on history that supposedly contradicts the New Testament. I can see certain things that are discussed in each but not in the other, but I don't see how that is a contradiction, unless one makes the other impossible.
It looks to me as though you're trying to portray the New Testament as a collection of anti-Semitic writings. Considering that nearly all the writers are ethnically Jewish, that's hard for me to believe. The Gospel accounts of Jesus' trial vary, but they all agree that Pilate was (in part) responsible for the execution of Jesus; they simply add that a contingent of Jews led by the priesthood put pressure on him. You say yourself that Pilate's treatment of the region was in question, and that it is for that reason that he was removed; is it so hard to imagine that he saw it coming, and tried (too late, and under the wrong circumstances) to moderate his actions? (IE, Pilate tries to go easy on Jesus, thinking it will keep the people from revolting; Jesus' enemies threaten a revolt if Jesus is not executed; Pilate chooses the course he thinks is least likely to get him removed.)
I will freely admit that this is, in part, a matter of faith. I ask only that you remember that your historical texts from two millennia ago are unlikely to be much more complete than our religious texts. Attrition alone ensures that, and doubtless competing political and religious factions all tried to have their personal agendas promoted and their opponents' suppressed.
As for the schism between Jewish and Gentile Christians--I do not know of any church that denies it existed. We simply take the side of Paul. Why not?
[ July 08, 2004, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
Nothing I have to disagree with in there, Mabus. (see how suspicious I am when I smile?) (not to mention lacking in eyebrows and nose and with a very round head)
I used to work calling alumni of my (private Christian) university asking for donations to scholarship funds. We called five afternoons and evenings a week, including Sunday. I remember several people who were very offended at being called on Sunday (why, I don't know, since nothing in the New Testament commands rest on the first day of the week - in fact, since it was a work day at the time, I hardly see how it could be interpolated). "Are you calling me on the Sabbath??" I always barely held back from answering, "No, I don't work on Saturdays."
Just saying. *shifty eyes*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not sure if anyone's interested, but the Catholic Church doesn't claim that Sunday is the Sabbath - Sunday is the Lord's Day, and weekly worship is held on that day because of the Resurrection.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
).![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)