The Bible doesn't talk about God

[Jeff]

8 hours ago, Spotless said:

I assumed most would understand what I meant by an apologist - it is not a theory: Either one believes in the Bible as the word of God - infallible - or one apologizes for it and retreats from portions of it and says things like - " well I don't like the Old Testament" and wants to go with just the New Testament and then when the great problems of the New Testament are brought up then the apologist either begins to hold his ground against all reason or begins to back off a good portion of it as well. 

 

You are a perfect example here of an apologist for the Bible. I do not mean it in an offensive way. All Christians are either Fundamentalists or Apologists regarding the Bible(s). To you it is simple - "just throw away Old Testament stuff" and pretty much focus on what you have chosen as the good stuff - I would guess that would include throwing out a great deal of the New Testament stuff - Basically toss out 19/20ths of the Bible and then it is pretty good. 

 

Most people would agree with that - I would - though possibly a bit less than 1/20th - more like 2% of it.

2% of it is pretty good stuff!

 

I understand what you are saying, but I think you are missing my point. You are making the “bible” as a book that was assembled under the guidance of the Roman Empire as the defining point of the discussion. The “bible” was assembled hundreds of years after the time of Christ. 

 

My point is different. I am saying that the teachings of Jesus are radically different than those found in the Old Testament. A “truth” rather than a bunch of old rules. Also, I fine with all of the gospels in the New Testament.

 

The shift between the teachings of Jesus and the Old Testament is so great, that is like trying to take all of modern knowledge of astronomy and trying to force it to fit in a (Old) model where the sun revolves around the earth.

[allinone]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

My point is different. I am saying that the teachings of Jesus are radically different than those found in the Old Testament. A “truth” rather than a bunch of old rules. Also, I fine with all of the gospels in the New Testament.

 

so you are against circumcising as it is a old rule?

or you are in for thinking that it is hidden meaning, finger pointing the moon?

 

[Jeff]

4 minutes ago, allinone said:

 

so you are against circumcising as it is a old rule?

or you are in for thinking that it is hidden meaning, finger pointing the moon?

 

 

No, I also think it is a good idea to put latrines down stream and away from the camp as the Old Testament describes as commanded by God. Just not big into the god commands to around around raping and killing captive prisoners.

[allinone]

14 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

No, I also think it is a good idea to put latrines down stream and away from the camp as the Old Testament describes as commanded by God. Just not big into the god commands to around around raping and killing captive prisoners.

 

why you read bible? to find truths? there are much better books for that.

--

like government laws.

Edited October 16, 2017 by allinone

[allinone]

Or there are truths what are universal. Like you do something and over the time the truths come out, reveal themselves. So if to put countless people to do it, then the truths will separate people, some remain like monkies long time before discover basics.

[Jeff]

1 hour ago, allinone said:

 

why you read bible? to find truths? there are much better books for that.

--

like government laws.

 

There is some very good stuff to be found in the teaching of Jesus.  But, to each their own.  

[Fa Xin]

37 minutes ago, Apeiron&Peiron said:

I have held off on making a comment. But, if we are going to do a linguistic analysis, it ought to be thorough. Most analysts have concluded that the language and structure of the old testament suggest it was made from four or more different traditions. 

I totally get that “feel” from reading the OT too. 

 

[Spotless]

18 hours ago, Jeff said:

 

I understand what you are saying, but I think you are missing my point. You are making the “bible” as a book that was assembled under the guidance of the Roman Empire as the defining point of the discussion. The “bible” was assembled hundreds of years after the time of Christ. 

 

My point is different. I am saying that the teachings of Jesus are radically different than those found in the Old Testament. A “truth” rather than a bunch of old rules. Also, I fine with all of the gospels in the New Testament.

 

The shift between the teachings of Jesus and the Old Testament is so great, that is like trying to take all of modern knowledge of astronomy and trying to force it to fit in a (Old) model where the sun revolves around the earth.

Are you OK with all the plagiarisms in the "New Testament" - the problems I alluded to?

 

I have not "missed your point" - the original post was regarding The Bible - my responses were regarding The Bible.

You have not responded to my responses - but went beyond the scope and added arguement to nothing I wrote - it was odd.

 

You have definitely agreed with what I said in my original posts. All of your arguments or points so far have only been in complete agreement with what I have said.

 

Might want to re-read what I said in the first place - it was actually pretty simple.

I have not even touched upon the "New Testament" though i am not sure I am interested in a long discussion of it - been there and did that ad nausea many years ago. My wife is Harvard Divinity and half our friends are Harvard Divinity.

 

The books compiled as the teachings and life of the character called Jesus known as the New Testament have great descepancies and all sorts of questionable content that may or may not have come from an actual person or singular author even in a portion by "one" author - it is somewhat hard to stomach the - assumption - that they were in fact the teachings of a real person.

I am not arguing if he existed or not but there is not a shred of evidence that he did and we know that the New Teatament is fraught  with all sorts of problematic inconsistencies and very odd anomalies. Obviously you must be an expert on these as well - i do not mean that as a joke - it does not take any real delving into the subject to understand the total sum of problems with the entire Bible(s). 

 

Bye the way - I do not mean to imply that the words gathered in the New Testament that are ascribed to have been said by a real person named Jesus are not helpful or foolish and I do not wish to demean the experience of them. They would be no less helpful than if written as simply a character out of a book. Obviously they are dear to you and have been of great service - that is wonderful.

 

I simply find the Bible as some sort of historical document of any kind hysterical - it is an utter mess.

 

Edited October 17, 2017 by Spotless

[Jeff]

5 hours ago, Spotless said:

Are you OK with all the plagiarisms in the "New Testament" - the problems I alluded to?

 

As I stated in an earlier post, I agree that there are many similar concepts expressed that are similar to other traditions. That would seem to be expected across all traditions to various degrees. To me, it becomes interesting when traditions take things beyond some basic generic norm, something which Jesus does.

 

Quote

 

I have not "missed your point" - the original post was regarding The Bible - my responses were regarding The Bible.

You have not responded to my responses - but went beyond the scope and added arguement to nothing I wrote - it was odd.

 

I have done that to give examples of how your “only apologists” argument does not fit for me.

 

Quote

 

You have definitely agreed with what I said in my original posts. All of your arguments or points so far have only been in complete agreement with what I have said.

 

Might want to re-read what I said in the first place - it was actually pretty simple.

I have not even touched upon the "New Testament" though i am not sure I am interested in a long discussion of it - been there and did that ad nausea many years ago. My wife is Harvard Divinity and half our friends are Harvard Divinity.

 

I do not see how your wife and friends being “Harvard Divinity” has any bearing on the topic. Are you saying that your wife and friends have doctorates in philosophy, and that relates in some way?

 

Since you have stated that you only like 2% of the gospels and New Testament, I can see why you would not be interested in a long discussion of it. It is your 2%, as compared to my much higher percentage, that is probably the basis for our differing views.

 

Quote

 

The books compiled as the teachings and life of the character called Jesus known as the New Testament have great descepancies and all sorts of questionable content that may or may not have come from an actual person or singular author even in a portion by "one" author - it is somewhat hard to stomach the - assumption - that they were in fact the teachings of a real person.

I am not arguing if he existed or not but there is not a shred of evidence that he did and we know that the New Teatament is fraught  with all sorts of problematic inconsistencies and very odd anomalies. Obviously you must be an expert on these as well - i do not mean that as a joke - it does not take any real delving into the subject to understand the total sum of problems with the entire Bible(s). 

 

Bye the way - I do not mean to imply that the words gathered in the New Testament that are ascribed to have been said by a real person named Jesus are not helpful or foolish and I do not wish to demean the experience of them. They would be no less helpful than if written as simply a character out of a book. Obviously they are dear to you and have been of great service - that is wonderful.

 

I simply find the Bible as some sort of historical document of any kind hysterical - it is an utter mess.

 

 

I totally agree that there is no point in trying to take any oral tradition that didn’t right anything down until 50-100 years later as a historical account. To me it is about the teachings themselves, not the literal historical accuracy. 

[Spotless]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

 

As I stated in an earlier post, I agree that there are many similar concepts expressed that are similar to other traditions. That would seem to be expected across all traditions to various degrees. To me, it becomes interesting when traditions take things beyond some basic generic norm, something which Jesus does.

 

 

I have done that to give examples of how your “only apologists” argument does not fit for me.

 

 

I do not see how your wife and friends being “Harvard Divinity” has any bearing on the topic. Are you saying that your wife and friends have doctorates in philosophy, and that relates in some way?

 

Since you have stated that you only like 2% of the gospels and New Testament, I can see why you would not be interested in a long discussion of it. It is your 2%, as compared to my much higher percentage, that is probably the basis for our differing views.

 

 

I totally agree that there is no point in trying to take any oral tradition that didn’t right anything down until 50-100 years later as a historical account. To me it is about the teachings themselves, not the literal historical accuracy. 

I think perhaps if I had used the word reductionist you would not be in such resistance to the word Apologist regarding the activity that I was all along referring to: Those who do not believe in the literal translation such as the Fundamentalists all like to throw out any portion of the Bible that they care to in order for it to be palatable or to their liking. You have chosen to throw out a very great deal - not quite down to 2 % but a pretty small amount. 

Any way - I think we are clear on what we have been discussing.

Edited October 17, 2017 by Spotless

[Jeff]

12 minutes ago, Spotless said:

I think perhaps if I had used the word reductionist you would not be in such resistance to the word Apologist regarding the activity that I was all along referring to: Those who do not believe in the literal translation such as the Fundamentalists all like to throw out any portion of the Bible that they care to in order for it to be palatable or to their liking. You have chosen to throw out a very great deal - not quite down to 2 % but a pretty small amount. 

Any way - I think we are clear on what we have been discussing.

 

I am only throwing out the Old Testament and fine with all of the New Testament. Also, my point is really that Jesus and his teachings are vastly beyond (and different) than the Old. The “new wine” is so new as compared to the “old wineskin”, that there is really no point in trying to correlate the two.

 

And that correlation was driven not by Jesus and his teachings, but more by an “empire” that wanted these older components for the purpose of fear and empire building.

[allinone]

On ‎16‎.‎10‎.‎2017 at 6:36 PM, Jeff said:

 

There is some very good stuff to be found in the teaching of Jesus.  But, to each their own.  

 

Yes to each their own.

 

But i think people already have a delusion before they start read bible. Its just a book of words in a row. Teachings idea is to understand thyself what 'dongo' views reader has: what thoughts arise while reading a book. So can go introspective, to start penetrate what makes up the faculties, where the thoughts come and what are their characteristics.

[allinone]

On ‎17‎.‎10‎.‎2017 at 5:53 PM, Jeff said:

 

I am only throwing out the Old Testament and fine with all of the New Testament. Also, my point is really that Jesus and his teachings are vastly beyond (and different) than the Old. The “new wine” is so new as compared to the “old wineskin”, that there is really no point in trying to correlate the two.

 

And that correlation was driven not by Jesus and his teachings, but more by an “empire” that wanted these older components for the purpose of fear and empire building.

 

same thing can be said that Home Alone first and second movie was much better than third. In third there weren't even same actors acting, but the still the plot was same.

So i assume the plot is the same with Old and New testament. So what is the plot? Jesus comes second time, well if it is not coming then you switch to heaven is within us all and need find it, so but hmm there comes a twist that Jesus will actually come. So then are your mouth then full of shackels, any regrets?

*Jesus perhaps will come with a spaceship armada. Maybe even it was made up story who knows, but for a nowadays person it is a book story, your brain reads it and you interpret it second time, a brain filtered crazy train of thoughts.

--

I wonder why can't you notice crazy thoughts, and just continue with knowing about crazy thoughts, you don't have to throw them away.

Instead you evangelize, sry i have that part of brain occupied by crusaders, so if that ends, there is pagan religion, giants and other mythical creatures what once lived.

 

Edited October 20, 2017 by allinone

[allinone]

from wiki

Tengri

 

In Turkic mythology, Tengri is a pure, white goose that flies constantly over an endless expanse of water, which represents time. Beneath this water, Ak Ana ("White Mother") calls out to him saying "Create". To overcome his loneliness, Tengri creates Er Kishi, who is not as pure or as white as Tengri and together they set up the world. Er Kishi becomes a demonic character and strives to mislead people and draw them into its darkness. Tengri assumes the name Tengri Ülgen and withdraws into Heaven from which he tries to provide people with guidance through sacred animals that he sends among them. The Ak Tengris occupy the fifth level of Heaven. Shaman priests who want to reach Tengri Ülgen never get further than this level, where they convey their wishes to the divine guides. Returns to earth or to the human level take place in a goose-shaped vessel.^[13]

According to Mahmud al-Kashgari, Tengri was known to make plants grow and the lightning flash. Turks used the adjective tengri which means "heavenly, divine", to label everything that seemed grandiose, such as a tree or a mountain, and they stooped to such entities.^[14] Tengri worship by "infidels" was viewed negatively by Kashgari.^[15] The non-Muslim Turks worship of Tengri was mocked and insulted by the al-Kashgari, who wrote a verse referring to them – The Infidels – May God destroy them!^[16][17]

[allinone]

Mahmud al-Kashgari

 

One of al-Kashgari's most historically significant poems, tells of the Turko-Islamic conquest of the last of the renowned Central Asian Buddhist kingdoms, the Kingdom of Khotan of the Iranian Sakas:

We came down on them like a flood!
We went out among their cities!
We tore down the idol-temples,
We shat on the Buddha's head!^[9][10]

[allinone]

goose shaped vessel? is that an alien spaceship?

[allinone]

wiki

 

The Qin dynasty (Chinese: 秦朝; pinyin: Qín Cháo; Wade–Giles: Ch'in² Ch'ao²) was the first dynasty of Imperial China, lasting from 221 to 206 BC.

 

Religion

Chinese folk religion Legalism

[allinone]

Curious why there is so much war in Arabian Peninsula to this day. Heavenly Mana? is heroin? what aliens growing here?

[TheCLounge]

On 10/12/2017 at 9:59 PM, Nungali said:

And maybe when it says God  ... it means  you  ?          

Gods name in the Bible is "I AM"..It's that way for a reason

 

The bible says you are God

 

The knowledge of good and evil is the ego that separates you from your true essence. From your true self..

[Gunther]

On 24/10/2017 at 3:55 PM, allinone said:

Curious why there is so much war in Arabian Peninsula to this day. Heavenly Mana? is heroin? what aliens growing here?

magic mushrooms maybe.takes a lot of hard work to make heroin(from opium)l.o.l.

[Nungali]

On ‎16‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 4:04 AM, Cheshire Cat said:

 

I prefer not to translate stuff that can't be translated because NONE has the truth, not even the Jewish traditions.

This is a fact.

 

?     .....    That is an answer to this ; 

 

" But I prefer , when examining Hebrew names of God , to go to a  Hebrew tradition, not a Christian one "

 

Jewish traditions do not understand Jewish words ?  ...    What ?

 

On ‎16‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 4:04 AM, Cheshire Cat said:

 

 

That "name" is already translated "I am what I am" and it sounds more like an upset warlord than some sort of esoteric thing.

 

 

What it sounds like depends on the receptor I suppose.  One has to not go on 'what it sounds like'...  merely to  oneself . You have to try and understand it in context of levels and the other names of those levels ... which Is why I posted the charts and the Tree of Life   .

 

It can be interpreted as the  essential existential statement ; an essential awareness without description or qualification  , not something I would attribute to a warlord .... although, in many other cases of communication from Yahweh ... I certainly agree with the Warlord 'tantie'  rant  !  ( Taking that in context and with the actions that followed )

[TheCLounge]

6 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

?     .....    That is an answer to this ; 

 

" But I prefer , when examining Hebrew names of God , to go to a  Hebrew tradition, not a Christian one "

 

Jewish traditions do not understand Jewish words ?  ...    What ?

 

 

What it sounds like depends on the receptor I suppose.  One has to not go on 'what it sounds like'...  merely to  oneself . You have to try and understand it in context of levels and the other names of those levels ... which Is why I posted the charts and the Tree of Life   .

 

It can be interpreted as the  essential existential statement ; an essential awareness without description or qualification  , not something I would attribute to a warlord .... although, in many other cases of communication from Yahweh ... I certainly agree with the Warlord 'tantie'  rant  !  ( Taking that in context and with the actions that followed )

I AM simply means awareness and essence..

 

where did the idea of a warlord come from? Lol

 

in hebrew your name indicated your nature

 

I AM indicates that God is the true essence of all things..

 

I hate saying the word "God"...it means nothing without a purpose..

 

A lot of people misinterpret the meanings of the sayings, laws and symbolism in the OT. Mainly because they don't have an understanding of Hebrew culture and esotericism, and because the Roman Catholic Church screwed everything up

Edited November 18, 2017 by TheCLounge

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, TheCLounge said:

Gods name in the Bible is "I AM"..It's that way for a reason

 

What ?  God has many names in the Bible ... why are you saying it is just 'I am "  ? 

 

I am wondering what the  'reason'   behind you claim is, if it was true anyway ?

 

1 hour ago, TheCLounge said:

 

The bible says you are God

 

Parts of the Bible seem to say that ... for some .    As you wrote it ^   , that's a bit of a stretch .

 

1 hour ago, TheCLounge said:

 

The knowledge of good and evil is the ego that separates you from your true essence. From your true self..

 

Depends what you mean by 'ego'  I suppose .  Its a very flexible term nowadays

[Nungali]

21 minutes ago, TheCLounge said:

I AM simply means awareness and essence..

 

Maybe  .... but what does  ' I am that I am '  mean   (  אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה‎,)  again , context !

 

ehyeh asher ehyeh [ehˈje aˈʃer ehˈje]) is the common English translation (JPS among others) of the response that God used in the Hebrew Bible when Moses asked for his name (Exodus 3:14). It is one of the most famous verses in the Torah. Hayah means "existed" in Hebrew; ehyeh is the first person singular imperfect form and is usually translated in English Bibles as "I am" or "I will be" (or "I shall be"), for example, at Exodus 3:14. Ehyeh asher ehyeh literally translates as "I Am Who I Am." The ancient Hebrew of Exodus 3:14 lacks a future tense such as modern English has, yet a few translations render this name as "I Will Be What I Will Be," given the context of Yahweh's promising to be with his people through their future troubles.^[1] Both the literal present tense "I Am" and the future tense "I will be" have given rise to many attendant theological and mystical implications in Jewish tradition. However, in most English Bibles, in particular the King James Version, the phrase is rendered as I am that I am.

Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh (often contracted in English as "I AM") is one of the Seven Names of God accorded special care by medieval Jewish tradition.^[2] The phrase is also found in other world religious literature, used to describe the Supreme Being, generally referring back to its use in Exodus. The word Ehyeh is considered by many rabbinical scholars to be a first-person derivation of the Tetragrammaton, see for example Yahweh.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am

 

21 minutes ago, TheCLounge said:

 

where did the idea of a warlord come from? Lol

 

In realktion to 'I am that I am '  from  Cheshire Cat , in relation to warlike advice and orders issued to Jews , from me

 

21 minutes ago, TheCLounge said:

 

in hebrew your name indicated your nature

 

That makes me the archangel of fire  !

 

21 minutes ago, TheCLounge said:

 

I AM indicates that God is the true essence of all things..

 

 

 see above

 

21 minutes ago, TheCLounge said:

 

I hate saying the word "God"...it means nothing without a purpose..

 

Then, don't say it   

[TheCLounge]

Just now, Nungali said:

 

What ?  God has many names in the Bible ... why are you saying it is just 'I am "  ? 

 

I am wondering what the  'reason'   behind you claim is, if it was true anyway ?

 

 

Parts of the Bible seem to say that ... for some .    As you wrote it ^   , that's a bit of a stretch .

 

 

Depends what you mean by 'ego'  I suppose .  Its a very flexible term nowadays

Exodus clearly states that I AM is his true name. Beginning and end. The very true essence of life. If you read the Torah he makes it clear that this is his name because it indicates his nature. He is nature itself. He tells Moses that he hid his name from Abraham but he wanted to finally reveal it to the people of Israel after freeing them from Egypt. Israel is the true self. Egypt represents the ego. The entire Torah is about knowing your true self. Not about religion. The 10 Commandments are the Laws of Cause and effect. Positive and negative. Masculine and feminine. The first commandment summarizes and fulfills the all..Which is I AM..Acknowledging your "I Am" is to know and acknowledge all life itself. Because it is all one

 

There are many titles used to "describe" him. But the Torah makes it clear that his name is I AM. Jesus also affirms this all throughout the NT. When the Pharisees wanted to kill him for saying his name.

 

There is power in that phrase. To say I AM you are realizing an essential part of something.