Posts by Jonathan Drake

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

the purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.

the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.

by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .

Jonathan Drake

@viv

also could you list your references being used?

i really don't want to have a circular discussion with you. You're talking about the same God being worshipped different ways. I'm not sure why you're drawing a distinction and trying to assert that Moses was dealing with a complete different God. Moses, or whoever wrote these books, made no effort to hide that El Shaddai and yahweh were identical. They explicitly said so. You're arguing about the same God being worshipped in different ways. It's not an argument worth having. The only thing you are proving is that the God is older than the Israelites, and that only gives it more credence not less.

If the bible writers had made an effort to hide this gods history, I'd agree with you. But they didn't, so I don't. The Ugarit Tablets only show the God known by the biblical patriarchs is truly very old (dated to around 2000 B.C.E.). You seem to think this discredits the bible somehow, but it does not. Had the writer tried to hide it, like this God just chose him all the sudden, then it would - but that's not what happens in the books.

upon further research, I'm only seeing more biblical harmony. All through the New Testament yahweh is actually recalled from the Old Testament and applied to Christ (Hebrews 1 is an example). And it appears that in deut el Shaddai is shown to be a subordinate to El (requires more research, I literaly just read this). If this is the case, then that is only a better harmony. It would show that the God being referred to by Jacob and Abraham whom they spoke with was el Shaddai, later yahweh, and the being who becomes Jesus. While El, is the father of this being, the almighty who Christ refers to as greater than himself. It would fit the very binitarian view of the NT by demonstrating a similar view in the OT.

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

the purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.

the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.

by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .

Jonathan Drake

@viv

do you have or are you pursuing a degree in history or theology?

52

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom in

to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).

however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.

surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!

Jonathan Drake

From Jonathan:

"As far as the Mark account, the writer assumed knowledge of birth, death and resurrection was known. One way this is shown is by how the Jews use the phrase," son of Mary" instead of son of Joseph when referring to Jesus. This was a derogatory reference inferring his illegitimacy. It's a direct call out to the virgin birth story."
This is unsupported and goes against principles of scholarship and common sense.

The referrence to him as the son of Mary has been theorized to mean this for a long time. It was not normal for a male child to be referred to this way. They would have called him Jesus son of Joseph, not mary. Thus to ignore Joseph shows the public knew about the issue regarding his birth. It's difficult to ignore the implications. I can concede we have no way of knowing FOR SURE this had derogatory intent, but we do know for sure this demonstrates they knew about his birth. No way around it.

it is supported by cultural history, and common sense should tell you that since they never referred to a male this way they were doing it here with Jesus for a reason. Unless you have a better explanation for why this cukture would randomly choose Jesus as the only example of the feminine expression "Son of Mary"? Scholars do actually recognize it as meaning recognition of his birth story, the only contention is whether it was derogatory or not.

35

If you have faith like a grain of mustard seed ...

by Simon in

matthew 17:20 - he said to them, because of your little faith.

for truly, i say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, move from here to there, and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.. i get the 'message' - if you believe enough (in fact, even a tiny amount - a mustard seed being tiny) then nothing is impossible but really, what a ridiculous statement and idea for several reasons.. there are lots of people who believe things completely and sincerely even to the point of death.

so far i've not noticed any sudden movements of any mountain ranges.

Jonathan Drake

This is a very good point. So I'll have to concede it's possible. Because you're right, the terrorism found in radicalized islam (which I just assume is the terrorism you referred to) is a perfect example of a group hated and hunted but people still join. Gave me something to think about, very interesting,

10

Belief in God is our intrinsic and permanent nature, shows new findings!

by abiather in

there are many theories about the origin of belief in god, such as (1) ancient illiterate people feared forces of nature, which were then personified as gods and worshipped for protection.

(2) invention of agriculture and food surplus led to a new way of life, which included culture and religion..

yet such views are strongly being challenged today by various developments in our times.

Jonathan Drake

JD - I am wondering what part of the OP you are responding to?
In any case your topic is more interesting than Aba's.
It is beyond doubt that our personality, sexual orientation and even our religiosity is strongly influenced by our genes. That is not the same thing as fate. We are not entirely slaves of our genes.

I was responding to the idea that believing in God is inherent in our nature. I really don't believe that at all. I could concede it's normal to wonder how we got here, but I would challenge that studies in science specifically aimed at explaining this without God show its more about finding an answer to this - not about necessarily assuming it's God. Does that make sense?

Along with this, any familiar with Jesus deeds as they are recorded will remember that he wanted people to have faith of their own free will. I would challenge that putting into humans this intrinsic search would be like cheating. The bible says that those conscious of their spiritual need would be happy because it would be filled, therefore not everyone is conscious of it.

As far as how genes may influence us, I still would not be thrilled to know they influence us at all. I'd rather be completely free to make choices, not make choices that have been influenced. I.e., if I were a devout catholic, I'd feel kind of violated if I were to find out nature manipulated me to make that choice. If nurture influenced me that wouldn't bother me as much, since as an adult I'd be free of that influence. But genes would always be influencing me - I'd never be free, how could I trust my choices to be really me? Know what I mean?

10

Belief in God is our intrinsic and permanent nature, shows new findings!

by abiather in

there are many theories about the origin of belief in god, such as (1) ancient illiterate people feared forces of nature, which were then personified as gods and worshipped for protection.

(2) invention of agriculture and food surplus led to a new way of life, which included culture and religion..

yet such views are strongly being challenged today by various developments in our times.

Jonathan Drake

I don't believe belief in God is part of nature in this way. I couldn't disagree with this more.

to suggest that mankind is born with intrinsic traits that determine theology or sexual orientation or whatever else that's been suggested is to suggest fate is real. It would mean people are predestined by their genetics. The catch 22 now is that the bible doesn't support fate or predestination in this way. Therefore, a person cannot suggest such notions while believing the bible.

I would really hate if this was proven somehow. It suggests that rather than being born a blank slate that grows into something individually beautiful, we are at the mercy of our DNA. That would be horribly disappointing.

52

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom in

to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).

however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.

surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!

Jonathan Drake

The letters written by Paul are from the mid first century... and he wrote them.

as far as everything else you said it was just a different way of saying the same thing essentially. There is no basis for asserting any of these things you're saying. I already cited a good reference as to why. The issue with Peter had nothing to do with teaching, it was just his actions. Its clearly explained as such. And peters reaction to Cornelius shows he realized God is not partial. Thus to make the assertion you are is a real stretch.

If you read it for what it says, you reach the conclusion that Peter wasnt sure about Gentiles at first. Later understood there was no issue, but had trouble ridding his cultural customs out of his behavior just like other Jewish Christians. To make further assertions and ascribe meaning and indication is to verge on Pesher, which I won't do. It speaks for itself, and it's not saying what your posts are saying.

So I think we'll have to agree to disagree :). But I hope I haven't said anything taken personally by you, I really enjoy your posts even if I don't agree with every detail.

35

If you have faith like a grain of mustard seed ...

by Simon in

matthew 17:20 - he said to them, because of your little faith.

for truly, i say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, move from here to there, and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.. i get the 'message' - if you believe enough (in fact, even a tiny amount - a mustard seed being tiny) then nothing is impossible but really, what a ridiculous statement and idea for several reasons.. there are lots of people who believe things completely and sincerely even to the point of death.

so far i've not noticed any sudden movements of any mountain ranges.

Jonathan Drake

@ island man

I agree; I have no problem conceding you're correct that it doesn't have to be true for people to die for it. My contention (see post with example above), is that the persecution complex wouldn't be set off in those not associated with the group. I.e., I'm not Christian, I believe they are wrong, I see em killed and hung and whatever, I believe this is justice. Why would I ever accept their faith in the face of such events? Yet people did, constantly. (Again see post above, the example is better explained I think.)

35

If you have faith like a grain of mustard seed ...

by Simon in

matthew 17:20 - he said to them, because of your little faith.

for truly, i say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, move from here to there, and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.. i get the 'message' - if you believe enough (in fact, even a tiny amount - a mustard seed being tiny) then nothing is impossible but really, what a ridiculous statement and idea for several reasons.. there are lots of people who believe things completely and sincerely even to the point of death.

so far i've not noticed any sudden movements of any mountain ranges.

Jonathan Drake

@village

im not opposed to checking that out. But Neros actions are documented by more than biased Christian sources are they not?

52

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom in

to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).

however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.

surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!

Jonathan Drake

Yes his book is very good, I enjoyed the part about q but I was more interested in everything else.

I think I stated in your other thread that it would make sense for Peter to assume that preaching to all nations and tribes and tongues meant the Jews spread all over the empire. The Jews lived all over. I've always felt Peter likely believed this. However, while he was beckoned to go to Cornelius once he accepted he never questioned again, only his actions showed he needed to be corrected.

Your comment about the body of Christ being one and a house devided is true, and if these people were perfect and unaffected by their culture I would agree the gentile dilemma meant something other than it does. However as it stands, they were a people affected by thousands of years of culture that wouldn't be undone just because suddenly it's okay. It would take time to include Gentiles without anyone wondering about it.

As far as the Mark account, the writer assumed knowledge of birth, death and resurrection was known. One way this is shown is by how the Jews use the phrase," son of Mary" instead of son of Joseph when referring to Jesus. This was a derogatory reference inferring his illegitimacy. It's a direct call out to the virgin birth story.

as to the fighting regarding standardization of the church after constsntine, this is because of the warning given by the apostles. As i stated in the other thread, both Peter and Paul left instruction that after their death only oral and written teachings by them be used and remembered. Yet, after they died sects popped up teaching different things, and other books were created. The Christian movement was standardized already before the apostles died. Afterwards, people introduced their own ideas, in the same fashion as those mentioned by Paul in galations. This destandardized Christianity, resulting in varying beliefs which corrupted the original. Then the worship was further corrupted by the pope via my above posted information.

Summarizing, the real standard is the first century example. Any and all writings or teachings developed by people who weren't of the first century apostles is literally trash. Yet that trash came to define Christianity by the time of constsntine and was expounded on by the Catholic Church.