Not Mistranslating the Bible

[lifeforce]

1 hour ago, Jadespear said:

Ultimately, none of them really contain a full explanation... the universe is extremely vast and I have experienced things that are quite strange.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is also my understanding. I've hit so many dead ends in my study. Just when I think I've found the 'holy grail', bam ! Something I come across becomes totally at odds with my previous thought.

Going back in time to the most ancient texts isn't guaranteed to bring ultimate wisdom.

We are constantly told not to 'cherry pick' from different traditions. But the people who advocate this are normally subscribers to their own spiritual entrenchment. 

Nowadays I tend to sit quietly and meditate and see what comes to me as to which direction to take.

Self reliance is my new mantra.

[Jadespear]

18 hours ago, lifeforce said:

 

This is also my understanding. I've hit so many dead ends in my study. Just when I think I've found the 'holy grail', bam ! Something I come across becomes totally at odds with my previous thought.

Going back in time to the most ancient texts isn't guaranteed to bring ultimate wisdom.

We are constantly told not to 'cherry pick' from different traditions. But the people who advocate this are normally subscribers to their own spiritual entrenchment. 

Nowadays I tend to sit quietly and meditate and see what comes to me as to which direction to take.

Self reliance is my new mantra.

 

 

...My thoughts exactly.  Which is why I feel intellectual explanations will never fulfill our real yearning.  Hence, the ability to venture into states of mind and develop oneself are almost necessary to be able to understand things at a deeper level than the physical realm...  

 

Often I find my mind likes to cling to truths, which is all well and good, but there are so many truths... it's almost as if the mind cannot grasp all of them at only point in time... but it is important to remember the ones that we can truely embrace and that are easy to understand and use, morality, facts of science, etc. etc. 

 

The great nature of existence is always kinda on my mind...

[mrpasserby]

Having spent a number of years with a focus on the bibles serviceability toward my achieving functional abilities within the unseen world, I have formed the following conclusion 'in part', (the following comment contains craft information which is frequently controversial and is not complete in its functionality being intended for use as information only). 

 

A comment on correctly translating portions of the bibles functionality: 

Spoiler

https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/44876-visualizations-stories-the-mage/

 

 

Edited April 28, 2019 by mrpasserby
spelling corrections

[pegasus1992]

If a person wishes to understand the bible then this might be a helpful text.There's a terrible amount of misinformation surrounding it, and it is very very far from what it appears to be.

 

 

                                                                                    

Edited June 20, 2019 by pegasus1992

[Spotless]

We tend to talk about “The Bible” as though it is an original work - sometimes there is reference to older versions as though they may be the original or more pure version.

 

But the Bible of what ever version is a concoction of various bits of writing compiled centuries after the proposed existence of Jesus.

 

Nothing what-so-ever was written by anyone regarding the existence of Jesus (of the Bible stories) for somewhere between 34 to 75 years after his approximated existence.

(The name “Jesus” was among the most common names of the time)

 

There is not one shred of evidence from the time of his proposed existence that he did in fact exist.

And there are many historical writings from that time that have come to us that do not mention his existence and have neglected to articulate the killing of first born that are proposed in some of the biblical versions - unimaginable that they were not even footnotes to the historical writers living during that time.

 

The overall highlights of his birth and death story are standard fair for nearly all previous God figures.

 

The Sun God Mithra was previously celebrated to have been born on December 25th and was celebrated to have resurrection in Easter - these were popular European celebrations usurped by the Cristians.

 

I am in no way arguing that Jesus did or did not exist - that zero evidence from the time of his proposed existence exists is a matter of record. And if you disagree 

it will be a real eye opener for you if you do due diligence in trying to prove this incorrect.

 

The various bibles are compilations that have thrown out (and often made certain to destroy as best they could) many eligible documents and added over time new documents.

 

”The Bible” has only two types of proponents - Fundamentalists and Apologists:

 

Fundamentalists are essentially literalists.

 

Apologists are all the others that write off great portions of the various bibles and offer up the bits and pieces they are proponents of as “the essential good stuff” that floats their beliefs in the assorted works of the various bibles and the hundreds of various sects.

 

It is generally not argued much as to what the the main character Jesus said or did not say among most followers - though nothing ascribed as said by him in those first 75 years is either unique or actually known to originated from him.

 

The “original teaching” - prior to the add-on’s over many centuries is thin to say the least. Once one is down to just the original bits here and there ascribed to Jesus - within the first 75 years after his proposed death - you have very little to put stock in.

 

Arguents for his existence are not unfounded - nor are arguments against. But the regard in general for any of the various cobbled together bibles are entirely suspect and easily laughable.

 

The historicity of the Jesus mentioned in the Bible is suspect - the various bibles are entirely suspect from cover to cover.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jeff]

For those who are interested in the early Christian writings and their timeline, you may find this site helpful...

 

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html

 

 

[Spotless]

If you wish to read the actual words Jesus is purported to have said in any of the various bibles - the words amount to only a few dozen pages depending on the size of the font.

 

Of those very few words - some 70% are highly suspect among educated scholarly “believers”.

 

In other words - it is a very quick read if you read “just Jesus’ words”

Complete books with authors intro and additions and explanations from 

116 pages complete.

[rideforever]

Doesn't really matter whether anything is authentic or not authentic or if Jesus lived.

There are extremely few people on the planet who are authentic enough to be interested.

All they are interested in arguing and being right ... about something ... i.e. defending some self-image.

[Jeff]

For those who are authentically interested, and prefer an more institutional view and framework... Bishop Robert Barron of the Catholic Church is very good.  He has a weekly podcast/sermon which is broadcast on the national catholic radio network.  He is very thoughtful and intelligent, and often draws parallels/comparisons from other hindu or buddhist traditions.

 

https://wordonfireshow.com

 

 

[Aetherous]

13 minutes ago, Spotless said:

If you wish to read the actual words Jesus is purported to have said in any of the various bibles - the words amount to only a few dozen pages depending on the size of the font.

 

Of those very few words - some 70% are highly suspect among educated scholarly “believers”.

 

In other words - it is a very quick read if you read “just Jesus’ words”

Complete books with authors intro and additions and explanations from 

116 pages complete.

 

That reminds me...I would like to prioritize the Christian teachings somewhat like this:

 

1) Jesus' words where multiple accounts are the same (because it's most likely to increase accuracy when more than one source claims he said or did something).

2) Jesus' words otherwise. Also, if he references the Old Testament, understanding the reference in context of both OT and NT.

3) Disciples' writings who lived with Jesus (because they were actually there with him and can have a better idea of what he meant, especially since they were told the meanings of the parables).

4) Apostle Paul's writings (because the disciples came to agree with him).

5) Early church fathers' writings (because they were the close to the source).

6) Anything else.

 

I think doing this can paint a really different picture of what Christianity could be like. In the modern church, I believe we have the following prioritization:

1) Apostle Paul's writings (so we have the teachings of someone who never met Jesus while he was alive in the highest priority).

2) Anything else (this includes modern day books and preachers, who make things up half of the time).

3) Disciple's writings.

4) Jesus' words.

5) Early church fathers (it seems the ECF are really only focused on in Catholicism, and probably only read by scholars and priests, not the general public).

[Aetherous]

Just now, Jeff said:

For those who are authentically interested, and prefer an more institutional view and framework... Bishop Robert Barron of the Catholic Church is very good.  He has a weekly podcast/sermon which is broadcast on the national catholic radio network.  He is very thoughtful and intelligent, and often draws parallels/comparisons from other hindu or buddhist traditions.

 

https://wordonfireshow.com

 

I've enjoyed watching his youtube videos. It brought me toward wanting to know more about Catholicism...although, researching further from other sources, I found myself not agreeing with many things about the sect.

[Jeff]

1 minute ago, Aetherous said:

 

That reminds me...I would like to prioritize the Christian teachings somewhat like this:

 

1) Jesus' words where multiple accounts are the same (because it's most likely to increase accuracy when more than one source claims he said or did something).

2) Jesus' words otherwise. Also, if he references the Old Testament, understanding the reference in context of both OT and NT.

3) Disciples' writings who lived with Jesus (because they were actually there with him and can have a better idea of what he meant, especially since they were told the meanings of the parables).

4) Apostle Paul's writings (because the disciples came to agree with him).

5) Early church fathers' writings (because they were the close to the source).

6) Anything else.

 

I think doing this can paint a really different picture of what Christianity could be like. In the modern church, I believe we have the following prioritization:

1) Apostle Paul's writings (so we have the teachings of someone who never met Jesus while he was alive in the highest priority).

2) Anything else (this includes modern day books and preachers, who make things up half of the time).

3) Disciple's writings.

4) Jesus' words.

5) Early church fathers (it seems the ECF are really only focused on in Catholicism, and probably only read by scholars and priests, not the general public).

 

 

I would agree.  I would also add that the modern christian church seems to want to fully see the old and new testaments as equal, rather than see Jesus's teachings as the upgraded realization.

[Jeff]

53 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

 

I've enjoyed watching his youtube videos. It brought me toward wanting to know more about Catholicism...although, researching further from other sources, I found myself not agreeing with many things about the sect.

 

Yes, depending on the pastor or priests, you can get some meaningful differentiation of views. I am not Catholic myself, but very much like Bishop Barron's views.  Would love to debate him on a few topics over dinner sometime.  

[Fa Xin]

I don’t resonate much with Paul’s writings... but I believe he is important because he shows us that you don’t need to have known Jesus personally to embody the Spirit - that it’s a living tradition, not a dead one. 

[Spotless]

Regarding Catholic input on historical Christianity and current “Christian” thinking you might want to double and triple check anything coming from a currently self designated Catholic.

 

Their “scholarly” input however nicely couched in present time inclusiveness is nearly always throughly corrupted and misleading in many subtle and not so subtle ways.

 

They are in many ways the Fox “news” of the various larger Christian religious sects.

 

 

Edited June 20, 2019 by Spotless

[Cheshire Cat]

Regarding Christianity, it's not surprising that people not familiar with "traditional churches" reaffirm with strength the principle known as Sola Scriptura ( religion based on scriptures and nothing else) to get in direct contact with the gracious teachings of Lord Jesus Christ. 

How wonderful would be to have the actual words of the Lord as the foundation of religion! 

 

But traditional Christianity was shaped very differently: the theological tradition of St. Paul evolved for a few hundred years before the authorities felt the need to have Sacred Scriptures and even then, the traditions of the Churches were the primary and the most important sources for those seeking Jesus' wisdom. Scriptures were chosen (and written) to specifically represent an already developed and explored theological doctrine. 

That's how the concept of "divine inspiration" of Sacred Scriptures was created. Also, many books were added to the collection of sacred texts just to have a reasonable number of volumes. Probably, at the time authorities thought that very few would be able to read them... so, they picked up texts without much care (think for example at the book of Daniel, which is apocryphal for Judaism and is totally irrelevant for Christians). 

 

Every single "early" Christian text was written to give a superficial mention to already explored concepts and teachings to avoid forcing the tradition to remain unchangeable forever. That's why you can read Jesus' words, but they're not actual instructions. They are general statements that can support various doctrines.

Many books were just controversial (nephilim, giants, God that commands to wage war, etc...) 

In fact, when (over the course of the centuries) too many people were able to read, the catholic church decided to prevent them from reading the Bible by adding it to a special Index. 

Even the apocryphal gospels used to represent specific theological and philosophical doctrines and they were written with the same principles used for the accepted Gospels. 

 

Christian textual sources were not traditionally thought to serve as the accurate report of Jesus teachings: the historical consequences of assuming the already mentioned principle of Sola Scriptura are the birth of hundreds of christianities and even more confusion. 

 

The harsh truth is that we can't get in touch with Jesus original teachings directly. We can explain the texts in the light of oriental philosophy and convince ourselves that we "cracked" the code and did better than the Church. But the exercise is purely speculative and IMO meaninglessness.  It's like using Arabic grammar to explain Gaelic languages. 

 

Edited June 21, 2019 by Cheshire Cat

[Jeff]

I would disagree with some of the comments in the posts above. For me, the gospels (in the Bible) are an accurate set of teachings of Jesus. The challenge is found in that in the formation of bible as a text itself, certain texts were excluded based upon Roman Empire integration and not spiritual guidance. Additionally, equal weight is placed on the Old Testament and it is often viewed as a “linear” story, rather than the “old” and “new” (that is replacing the old). The “god” that is described in the Old Testament is very different than the “god” that Jesus describes in the gospels. Simply throw away the Old Testament and add something like the gospel of Thomas and you have a simpler and better text to work with regarding the teachings of Jesus.

 

Best,

Jeff

[Cheshire Cat]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

I would disagree with some of the comments in the posts above. For me, the gospels (in the Bible) are an accurate set of teachings of Jesus.

 

There are certain elements in the gospels that could be considered actual teachings, but they're far from being accurate instructions of a method of self-realization in my opinion. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

Simply throw away the Old Testament and add something like the gospel of Thomas and you have a simpler and better text to work with regarding the teachings of Jesus.

 

I think that the old Testament is there mainly for two reasons: the first one is that Jesus said that he's not supposed to abolish the Law (thus forcing Christians to formally adopt the Torah as a textual source)... and the second is about the various prophecies that Christians claim are present in the Old Testament and that confirm that Jesus is the Messiah. 

 

Regarding the gospel of Thomas, in my opinion the problem is that without a living tradition we can't really know what they believed and practiced.

 

The text is so abstruse that I could use it to explain the advaita vedanta philosophy which - far from being a universal philosophy- is something very peculiar to a certain culture. 

[Jeff]

23 minutes ago, Cheshire Cat said:

 

There are certain elements in the gospels that could be considered actual teachings, but they're far from being accurate instructions of a method of self-realization in my opinion. 

 

I think that the old Testament is there mainly for two reasons: the first one is that Jesus said that he's not supposed to abolish the Law (thus forcing Christians to formally adopt the Torah as a textual source)... and the second is about the various prophecies that Christians claim are present in the Old Testament and that confirm that Jesus is the Messiah. 

 

He is not abolishing the old, but instead bringing a "higher" or more accurate (better) understanding/realization. Very similar to buddhism and its higher yanas that came later.  It is described well in Hebrews...

 

Hebrews 8:6-13.

“But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also the Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah- “not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. “None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. “For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away”.

 

23 minutes ago, Cheshire Cat said:

 

Regarding the gospel of Thomas, in my opinion the problem is that without a living tradition we can't really know what they believed and practiced.

 

The text is so abstruse that I could use it to explain the advaita vedanta philosophy which - far from being a universal philosophy- is something very peculiar to a certain culture. 

 

There are many such living traditions.  One much simply seek and they will find...

 

On  the Gospel of Thomas itself, for those interested we have had a good discussion going verse by verse here at the bums.  

[Cheshire Cat]

15 hours ago, Jeff said:

Very similar to buddhism and its higher yanas that came later.  It is described well in Hebrews...

 

Hebrews 8:6-13.

 

Jesus explicitly says in the gospels that he's not there to abolish the old Law. 

 

“Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets; I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished” (Mt. 5:17-18).

 

But Pauline theology talks about a new covenant, a new law. 

There are philosophical solutions to this contradiction, but they require the inclusion of the Torah into the Canon. 

15 hours ago, Jeff said:

There are many such living traditions.  One much simply seek and they will find...

 

 

I'm talking about living traditions that use the apocryphal texts since the time they were written, and not about modern reconstruction of ancient gnosticism. 

 

For example, Buddhists tend to explain and neutralize non-buddhist teachings in Buddhist philosophical categories: the theistic religions can't take you beyond the world of desire (because they worship worldly gods and not buddhas) , the immortal daoist is immortal because he cultivated a divergent (and inferior) path, etc... 

But when you close your mind in such a way, thinking your Dharma is so great that incorporates all other dharmas, you can't really understand other dharmas at all because you see your religion everywhere and - most importantly- you can't get anything from other dharmas. It's like the white man in Africa that thinks himself to be so superior to actually believe that Africans were savages before he came with civilization. 

 

You can use buddhism to explain religions that you actually don't know, but you're really just explaining buddhism itself. 

This exercise is done at various degrees: Bill Bodri do this in at least a couple of his books for example. 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 22, 2019 by Cheshire Cat

[Jeff]

5 minutes ago, Cheshire Cat said:

 

Jesus explicitly says in the gospels that he's not there to abolish the old Law. 

 

“Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets; I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished” (Mt. 5:17-18).

 

But Pauline theology talks about a new covenant, a new law. 

There are philosophical solutions to this contradiction, but they require the inclusion of the Torah into the Canon. 

 

There is no contradiction, it is his "fulfillment" that creates new options and potentials "within the law".  Thomas Aquinas explained it like this...

 

"In his Summa Theologiae I-II qq. 106-109, a section of the Summa known as the Treatise on Law, Saint Thomas Aquinas discusses the Law of Christ as the "New Law". He argues that it was virtually contained in the Old Law, that is the Old Testament, as a seed but only brought to perfection by Jesus Christ who perfectly fulfilled it. The ends of the Old and New are one and the same, being subjection to God's order, but they are different in that the New Law makes attaining the end possible. Meanwhile, since all law ultimately has reference to Divine Reason governing all things, the New Law contains and helps the human being fulfill the Natural Law which prescribes acts of virtue. Thus, Aquinas defines the New Law as "chiefly the grace itself of the Holy Ghost, which is given to those who believe in Christ," but adds that it also "contains certain things that dispose us to receive the grace of the Holy Ghost, and pertaining to the use of that grace." Therefore,"the New Law is in the first place a law that is inscribed on our hearts, but that secondarily it is a written law".

 

It is like a new world is created with his coming.  A higher potential and realization.

 

5 minutes ago, Cheshire Cat said:

 

I'm talking about living traditions that uses the apocryphal texts since the time they were written, and not about modern reconstruction of ancient gnosticism. 

 

For example, Buddhists tend to explain and neutralize non-buddhist teachings in Buddhist philosophical categories: for example, the theistic religions can't take you beyond the world of desire (because they worship worldly gods and not buddhas) , the immortal daoist is immortal because he cultivated a divergent (and inferior) path, etc... 

But when you close your mind in such a way, thinking your Dharma is so great that incorporates all other dharmas, you can't really understand other dharmas at all because you see your religion everywhere and - most importantly- you can't get anything from other dharmas. It's like the white man in Africa that thinks himself to be so superior to actually believe that Africans were savages before he came with civilization. 

 

You can use buddhism to explain religions that you actually don't know, but you're really just explaining buddhism itself. 

This exercise is done at various degrees: Bill Bodri do this in at least a couple of his books for example. 

 

 

I am not attempting to integrate all teachings or Dharma's into one.  My point was only that realizations (and the resulting teachings are not static).  There is a living evolution of potential...

 

And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old. And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved. No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

— Luke 5:36-39, KJV

 

 

New wine (realizations/teachings) require new bottles...

[Spotless]

I am simply curious - do any Christians here not care if Jesus was not born of a virgin, was not born of immaculate conception and did not resurrect?

 

Does (would) this essentially change the narrative, your beliefs and the teachings for you?

——-

separate second question:

 

Additionally - would it radically change your beliefs if he did not die for our sins - walk on water and feed the masses from a couple of bowls of bread and fish?

 

(these are not trick questions and I have no agenda to argue any point - I am actually just wondering)

Edited June 22, 2019 by Spotless

[Cheshire Cat]

6 hours ago, Jeff said:

There is no contradiction, it is his "fulfillment" that creates new options and potentials "within the law".  Thomas Aquinas explained it like this...

 

This precise point was widely discussed in Jewish circles from every possible angles. 

The conclusion is that a new law is as much an absurdity in Jesus' native cultural background as the idea of virginal birth and being the son of God. 

 

The trick of playing with words that edulcorate this conceptual reality of Christian theology is an old tradition, but we are spiritual seekers and we can face this truth without much discomfort, can't we? 

 

The idea of "surpassing"  or "fulfilling" the old Law includes bizarre theological concepts that - for example- create parallels between the Adam (disobeyed to God and was condemned to mortality) of the old Law and Jesus (who sacrifice himself to gain immortality for humankind) , and more. 

 

But please, ask a Jewish Rabbi why he can't accept the idea of a New covenant that "surpasses" ( meh) the old Law and you'll receive a very accurate answer. 

 

27 minutes ago, Spotless said:

these are not trick questions and I have no agenda to argue any point - I am actually just wondering)

 

Where are the Christians? 😅

[rideforever]

Was in Bible study class yesterday doing Acts C13&14. 

My god is this dull.

I spent most of the time doing outer dissolving on my K1 on the sole of my feet.

Was pretty good actually !!!

Does anyone actually listen to this stuff ?

Jesus is not questionable, if you listen to him there is great wisdom.

But as for all his followers who are making it up as they go along, always threatening.

For instance Paul feels free to go and disturb all these synagogues and tell them they should be Christians.
Why ?  Isn't Moses enough ?  If they have a settled well organised community, who are you to disturb them ?
Jesus may be a great teacher, but so was Moses and the Jews always lived cleanly and with a high aim.

Then, those people who worship "gods" ... are accused of idolatry.   Why ?  Perhaps when they worship Thunder or Poseidon, perhaps they have a clear channel of light, and just use that name.   What's wrong with that?
Jesus's consciousness is true and of a high origin, but going around telling everyone they are wrong is ... not very good.

Then if you perform miracles or bring money to people then they will become your disciples.

Why ?

I am not sure, healing is good .... but at the same time it is a bit cheap isn't it.

I question the entire thing.

What are we slaves to some "highest power" ?   To the best doctor, or the strongest man or the richest man.

Please let the truth be of a mucher higher quality than these games.

There are teachers that are beyond this showmanship .... whatever value it has had in the past.

Buddhism is not better.

The fact is ... who actually understand Jesus ?  Who actually bothered to read his words ?  Few.

Same with Buddha and everyone.

Mostly what you hear are the foolish students talking, in every tradition.

 

Practice instructions, that's what you want.

When you ask people for them, 99% of people will disappear.

Of those that remain 1 in 100 is trustworthy.

 

 

[Fa Xin]

6 hours ago, Spotless said:

I am simply curious - do any Christians here not care if Jesus was not born of a virgin, was not born of immaculate conception and did not resurrect?

 

Does (would) this essentially change the narrative, your beliefs and the teachings for you?

——-

separate second question:

 

Additionally - would it radically change your beliefs if he did not die for our sins - walk on water and feed the masses from a couple of bowls of bread and fish?

 

(these are not trick questions and I have no agenda to argue any point - I am actually just wondering)

 

Hi Spotless,

 

My question to you would be -  is it necessary to believe in such things to call oneself a Christian?