Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8781 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2017 7:06 PM
358 online now:
Coyote, DOCJ, Faith, GDR, Tanypteryx (5 members, 353 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,573 Year: 21,179/21,208 Month: 1,612/2,326 Week: 67/881 Day: 67/119 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Author Topic:   Is it moral for God to punish us?
Greatest I am
Member
Posts: 1390
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 76 of 145 (771950)
11-01-2015 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Phat
10-30-2015 9:28 PM


Re: Biggie Smalls
Phat

Jesus said, be ye like children. KIS.

Joseph Campbell has a short piece you might like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU

Tell me please. Who told you you were not relevant to the universe?

Ask any of your friends and relatives if that is so. They will not agree.

Regards
DL


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Phat, posted 10-30-2015 9:28 PM Phat has not yet responded

    
Greatest I am
Member
Posts: 1390
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 77 of 145 (771953)
11-01-2015 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Faith
11-01-2015 11:24 AM


Re: Who raised Jesus?
Dear heart.

There is a quote somewhere that says that ridicule is the only think one can use against ridiculous notions.

I do not want to do that with you. Please forgive.

Talking animals and water walking humans that are real sons of some real invisible God do not belong in history books. Odin as a real God would not be fitting as well. Don't you agree?

Listen to your own bible.

John 6 ; 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

The bible speaks to the spirit world which begins inside of you.

Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

When you are ready to find your real God, you go inside of yourself.

That is where Gnosis is.

Follow your bible.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Regards
DL


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Faith, posted 11-01-2015 11:24 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 11-01-2015 12:14 PM Greatest I am has responded

    
Greatest I am
Member
Posts: 1390
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 78 of 145 (771954)
11-01-2015 12:14 PM


Faith

Why are there only 4 gospels and not the original plethora?

http://etb-biblical-errancy.blogspot.ca/...four-gospels.html

Regards
DL


Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Faith, posted 11-01-2015 12:25 PM Greatest I am has not yet responded
 Message 86 by kbertsche, posted 11-01-2015 1:39 PM Greatest I am has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25863
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 79 of 145 (771955)
11-01-2015 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Greatest I am
11-01-2015 11:55 AM


Re: Who raised Jesus?
GIA,
I know what I believe and why I believe it. I dispensed with Gnosticism early in my study of religions, that finally got me to Bible Protestantism. Friends gave me books about Gnosticism hoping to dissuade me from the direction they could see I was going. The truth is not in the gnostic direction.

I don't know why everyone makes a big deal out of a talking snake. God also had a donkey speak. Nobody claims such things are natural, they are special situations and God can certainly do such things. Silly to object to them. Jesus walking on the water, all that is historical.

The spirit John is writing of is not the spirit WORLD which is Satan's domain, it's the human spirit that has been regenerated through Jesus' death on our behalf so that the communication between God and man that Adam and Eve lost can be resumed. It's important to learn how to discern the difference between satanic spirit and God's spirit.

You read the passages you quote with a spin that is not orthodox. I certainly know those passages and how to understand them, it's odd that you would think your interpretation is new to me. So many people say to trust the Bible who really mean read it they way they do, as if their way is the only way.

Things you've already said many times show you to have a mindset I reject completely and have no hope of affecting.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Greatest I am, posted 11-01-2015 11:55 AM Greatest I am has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Greatest I am, posted 11-01-2015 12:26 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25863
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 80 of 145 (771956)
11-01-2015 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Greatest I am
11-01-2015 12:14 PM


The Biblical canon was determined by the usage of the many early churches through their spiritual discernment of which writings were inspired. They rejected writings that did not have the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which they had the ability to judge because they had the Holy Spirit in them. Over time the collection of books judged as inspired by the various churches became clearer, although there was always some uncertainty about some of the books. Eventually after many years the canon came together as the books most often judged inspired by the churches. There was no conspiracy, which is what I suppose you are implying.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Greatest I am, posted 11-01-2015 12:14 PM Greatest I am has not yet responded

    
Greatest I am
Member
Posts: 1390
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 81 of 145 (771957)
11-01-2015 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Faith
11-01-2015 12:14 PM


Re: Who raised Jesus?
Faith

We are getting a ways off topic but one last on this trail.

What does your understanding of this passage tell you.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

Regards
DL


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 11-01-2015 12:14 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 11-01-2015 12:30 PM Greatest I am has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25863
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 82 of 145 (771958)
11-01-2015 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Greatest I am
11-01-2015 12:26 PM


Re: Who raised Jesus?
The single eye is the eye fixed on God instead of wavering between desire for God and earthly desires.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Greatest I am, posted 11-01-2015 12:26 PM Greatest I am has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Greatest I am, posted 11-01-2015 12:39 PM Faith has responded

    
Greatest I am
Member
Posts: 1390
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 83 of 145 (771959)
11-01-2015 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Faith
11-01-2015 12:30 PM


Re: Who raised Jesus?
Faith

Where does our weakness for earthly desires come from?

Regards
DL


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 11-01-2015 12:30 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 11-01-2015 12:40 PM Greatest I am has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 25863
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 84 of 145 (771960)
11-01-2015 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Greatest I am
11-01-2015 12:39 PM


Re: Who raised Jesus?
The sin nature or fallen nature we all inherit from our first father Adam.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Greatest I am, posted 11-01-2015 12:39 PM Greatest I am has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Greatest I am, posted 11-01-2015 12:47 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Greatest I am
Member
Posts: 1390
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 85 of 145 (771961)
11-01-2015 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Faith
11-01-2015 12:40 PM


Re: Who raised Jesus?
Faith

You and I do not read scriptures to the same conclusion and so I leave you with these.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

We seem to agree on the odd thing but literalists used to kill Gnostic Christians when they could for good reasons, to literalists.

Regards
DL


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 11-01-2015 12:40 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1365
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 86 of 145 (771967)
11-01-2015 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Greatest I am
11-01-2015 12:14 PM


Greatest writes:

Faith
Why are there only 4 gospels and not the original plethora?

http://etb-biblical-errancy.blogspot.ca/...four-gospels.html
Regards
DL


What evidence do you have that there was an "original plethora"?

The early church fathers quote from all of the four canonical gospels by the early to mid second century, and some of these quotes go back to the first century. Thus the four canonical gospels were written by the early to mid second century; many scholars believe that they were written in the first century.

The gnostic gospels were written later. They come from the latter part of the second century or the third century.

There was no "original plethora" of gospels. There were four original gospels, followed by a later plethora of gnostic writings.

As I've mentioned earlier, it is misleading to call these gnostic writings "gospels". This implies that they are similar to the canonical gospels, which they are not. They are merely collections of random sayings, which is radically different from the canonical gospels.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Greatest I am, posted 11-01-2015 12:14 PM Greatest I am has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by ringo, posted 11-01-2015 2:07 PM kbertsche has responded
 Message 95 by Greatest I am, posted 11-04-2015 12:33 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13459
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 87 of 145 (771968)
11-01-2015 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by kbertsche
11-01-2015 1:39 PM


kbertsche writes:

As I've mentioned earlier, it is misleading to call these gnostic writings "gospels".


You seem to be using a self-serving definition of "gospel".
This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by kbertsche, posted 11-01-2015 1:39 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by kbertsche, posted 11-01-2015 2:36 PM ringo has responded

  
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1365
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 88 of 145 (771969)
11-01-2015 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by ringo
11-01-2015 2:07 PM


ringo writes:

kbertsche writes:


As I've mentioned earlier, it is misleading to call these gnostic writings "gospels".


You seem to be using a self-serving definition of "gospel".

No, I'm just pointing out that the gnostic "gospels" have a completely different structure and style than the canonical gospels. (If you've read both, these differences should be glaringly obvious.) Calling them both "gospels" is very misleading.

The gnostic "gospels" are collections of sayings. In this aspect they are probably similar to the hypothesized "Q". We don't call Q a "gospel", but a "source" or a "collection of sayings."

In the same way, it would be more accurate and less misleading to refer to the gnostic "gospels" as gnostic "collections of sayings". The gnostic "gospels" may be analogous to Q, but they are in no way analogous to the canonical gospels.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ringo, posted 11-01-2015 2:07 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by ringo, posted 11-01-2015 2:56 PM kbertsche has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13459
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 89 of 145 (771970)
11-01-2015 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by kbertsche
11-01-2015 2:36 PM


kbertsche writes:

Calling them both "gospels" is very misleading.


And yet they are called gospels.

You're distinguishing "gospel" from "collection of sayings" apparently in an attempt to discount the gnostic gospels - i.e. to suggest that there was no "original plethora" of gospels. What we're talking about here is information about Jesus' life. I don't think it's legitimate to nitpick about how the information was presented.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by kbertsche, posted 11-01-2015 2:36 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by kbertsche, posted 11-01-2015 10:06 PM ringo has responded

  
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1365
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 90 of 145 (771976)
11-01-2015 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by ringo
11-01-2015 2:56 PM


ringo writes:

kbertsche writes:


Calling them both "gospels" is very misleading.


And yet they are called gospels.

Yes, and this is very odd. Perhaps the devotees of the gnostic "gospels" want to muddy the waters, and make people think that these are in some way analogous to the canonical gospels?

Have you actually read any of the canonical gospels, and any of the gnostic gospels??

ringo writes:

You're distinguishing "gospel" from "collection of sayings" apparently in an attempt to discount the gnostic gospels


Scholars don't refer to Q as a "gospel", but as a "collection of sayings". They do this not to discount Q, but to distinguish it from the canonical gospels, which are radically different than a mere collection of sayings.

ringo writes:

- i.e. to suggest that there was no "original plethora" of gospels. What we're talking about here is information about Jesus' life. I don't think it's legitimate to nitpick about how the information was presented.


Do you have any evidence that there actually was an "original plethora" of gospels? Do you have evidence that the gnostic gospels date to the first or early second centuries? If so, please present your evidence.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by ringo, posted 11-01-2015 2:56 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by ringo, posted 11-02-2015 10:46 AM kbertsche has responded

    
Prev1
...
45
6
78910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017