Christianity QA

Question:

One of the major challenges facing Bible researchers is the fact the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written between 200 and 300 years after the death of Christ.

Actually, As I recall, the assembly of an "approved" edition of the gospels began under Iranaeus, which would place it around 150 AD. Up until they were written down, it was orally passed on, the Lord and Lady only know how much errata was introduced durring that time.

You must remember that the Xtian faith at that time was very different: At the time the "approved edition was collected, there were thousands of differing versions of the gospels, including some by Mary Magdalene. The ones selected were picked as fitting most closely with the vision of Iranaeus and other church fathers for a powerful, central and political church. Let us also not forget that many translations of the bible were politically motivated such as the King James Version.

Except the misprinted version which left "not" out of the 7th commandment! Here is another thing to think about. Up until the invention of the printing press, very few people were literate. Priests and the Church (in this case the Catholic Church) could say anything they wanted and say it was in the Bible. With the invention of the printing press, the leaders in Rome realized they had a real problem on their hands, if people started reading the bible, they were going to find themselves facing a whole lot of angry people. So the first thing they did was dictate that no members of the Catholic church could own a bible, it was too holy for the common man, this is part of what lead to the revolt by Martin Luther. Since they knew this was only a stop gap messure at best, they saw to it that Bible said what they wanted it to say so it agreed with what they had been saying.

I assume you refer to the changes made in the 8th century or so, especially to Mark. One of the reason that I say this is the fact that I have a copy of the Talmud Jmmanuel, it reads a lot like the book of Matthew.

Matthew is considered to be the most "jewish" of the disciples (in opinion, not race).

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Technically speaking, Jesus wasnt God’s avatar. An avatar is a God who manifests itself as human for a period of time. Even the xians dont claim that Jesus WAS God, literally. Jesus always spoke of God in the third person, usually refering to it as "Father". Compare to Krishna, in the Bagavad Gita, who litrerally was God, and knew it while still "human".     Excuse me, Doc, but yes, they do. They consider jesus to be part of the trinity- Father, Son, and Holy Ghost- he is the "Son" part. He is considered to be just as much god as the other aspects (where did they get that "triune" thing?) You may know the Trinity as Big Daddy, J.C., and the Spook. The original "trinity" was the Canaanite one where "El" was the father (sort of retired and aloof) Baal was the son and Astarte the daughter/wife. Where is the female in the Xtian trinity? Yes I’ve heard that the "holy spirit/ghost is feminine, but  most Xtians don’t want to admit that. Delila Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft ™ "Life’s a bitch and then they drop a house on your sister" – W W West

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Technically speaking, Jesus wasnt God’s avatar. An avatar is a God who manifests itself as human for a period of time. Even the xians dont claim that Jesus WAS God, literally. Jesus always spoke of God in the third person, usually refering to it as "Father". Compare to Krishna, in the Bagavad Gita, who litrerally was God, and knew it while still "human".     Excuse me, Doc, but yes, they do. They consider jesus to be part of the trinity- Father, Son, and Holy Ghost- he is the "Son" part. He is considered to be just as much god as the other aspects (where did they get that "triune" thing?) You may know the Trinity as Big Daddy, J.C., and the Spook. — Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft ™ "Life’s a bitch and then they drop a house on your sister" – W W West

– Scott A. Bregi IPMS #32683 Remember Model building is Fun…Model building is fun…model building Scott A. Bregi ‘95 Passat GLX VR6

Response:

In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.980412210439.539024733B- writes Technically speaking, Jesus wasnt God’s avatar. [] ". [] James Foster, BA Just out of curiosity, what is the relevance of this to arw?

I was wondering the same thing myself, perhaps it would be better on E.mail. — NOTICE:  This e-mail address is being spoofed on USENET.  Obvious trolls and needlessly incendiary remarks should be ignored.  All authentic messages from this address will bear this disclaimer, although spoofed messages may as well. The ‘Old Craft’ lady               http://www.oldcity.demon.co.uk/

Response:

What translation James? I have read translations of the John 1:1 that read "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God."

This is currently popular with the Jehovah’s Witnesses (and a few others, but not so prevalant).  Read the following…              JOHN 1:1 AND THE WATCHTOWER DISHONESTY "Accuracy of statement.  Jehovah’s Witnesses are an organization of truth.  We should want to speak the truth and be absolutely accurate in every detail at all times.  This should be so not only as regards doctrine, but also in our quotations, what we say about others or how we represent them, also in matters involving scientific data or news events" ("Theocratic Ministry School Guidebook" p.110). The Watchtower Society does not agree with the historic Christian faith on any doctrine of fundamental importance.  In their efforts to strengthen their position they have published their own translation of the Bible called the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT).  They made the claim that it was free of the sectarian bias found in translations made by "Christendom’s" scholars. However, in their renderings, and especially at John 1:1, they have taken a position that is at great odds with the accepted understanding of the text.  Consequently, they have resorted to quoting non-Witness scholars in such a way as to justify themselves.  When asked or shown the quote many of these scholars have been outraged that their statements have been so abused. The question that must be answered is why would the Watchtower Society stand firmly in favor of honesty and exactness regarding quotations as they did in the School Guidebook but then regularly misquote scholars to support their positions? The first point that should be made is that none of the "translators" of the NWT had degrees in the Biblical languages of Greek and Hebrew.  Only Fred Franz had any "knowledge" of these languages, but under oath in a trial in Scotland in 1954 he refused to attempt a translation of Genesis 2:4.  The translation committee would not publish their names saying they did not want the "honor."  However, the writers of the New Testament books signed their names and we know they were not seeking honor.  But it is not always honor that one receives for his work! When Jehovah’s Witnesses are told that none of the translators had any scholarly credentials the reply might be that Jesus didn’t have any scholarly credentials either.  However, if the translation committee were to do the kind of works Jesus did they would not need credentials.  But, because of the kind of work they have done we need to see some credentials to back it up! The following are some of the clearest examples of dishonest quotation.  There are more but for the sake of space these four are cited.  The format will be to present the Watchtower’s quote, then the actual quote in context, and any remarks made by the scholar in question regarding his statement. 1)  Watchtower letter to David Henke, October 24, 1975, quoting Dr. Phillip Harner, of Heidelberg College, Tiffin, Ohio. The Watchtower said: "Note what Mr. Harner writes as to John 1:1:  ’In John 1:1 I think that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.’  Therefore, the Greek at John 1:1 is not overwhelmingly ‘definite’ as Colwell and others maintained so that the text should be rendered in the definite ‘the God.’  Rather, as Harner shows there is the qualitative force possible, hence, warranting ‘a god,’ meaning quality of Godlikeness or a mighty one."

"As an aid in understanding the verse it will be helpful to ask what John might have written as well as what he did write.  In terms of the types of word-order and vocabulary available to him, it would appear that John could have written any of the following: A.  ho Logos en ho theos     (the Word was the God); B.  Theos en ho Logos     (God was the Word); C.  ho Logos Theos en     (the Word God was); D.  ho Logos en Theos     (the Word was a god); E.  ho Logos en Theios     (the Word was divine); . . . Clause D, with the verb preceding an anarthrous (without the article, ‘the’) predicate, would probably mean that the logos was ‘a god’ or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of theos but as a distinct being from ho theos . . . John evidently wished to say something about the logos that was other than A and more than D and E . . . But in all these cases the English reader might not understand exactly what John was trying to express.  Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’  This would be one way of representing John’s thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos (the Word), no less than ho theos (the God), had the nature of theos (God)."  (JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE, Vol. 92, 1973, pp. 84, 85, 87; parentheses added for clarify, emphasis mine). In this example the Watchtower has Dr. Harner saying that Jesus is "a god" when Dr. Harner actually said Jesus is "more than" a god.  They have him also saying that theos in John 1:1c should be viewed as "qualitative" so that, again, Jesus is only "a god" whereas Dr. Harner said that Jesus had the nature of God no less than God Himself.  Yes, John 1:1c is qualitative as Dr. Harner says, but they have perverted the force, or degree, of that quality.  John is saying that Jesus is as much deity, divinity, God, as God the Father is deity, divinity, or God. 2)  The Watchtower, May 15, 1977, page 320, quoting Dr. William Barclay, University of Glasgow, Scotland. (Note:  The Watchtower quote is provided in its entirety, but where they have by using an ellipsis (…) omitted a crucial statement by Dr. Barclay it is noted in parentheses.) The Watchtower said: ". . . the noted Bible translator William Barclay writes"  ’Now normally, except for special reasons, Greek nouns always have the definite article in front of them . . . When a Greek noun has not got the article in front of it, it becomes rather a description rather than an identification, and has the character of an adjective rather than of a noun.  We can see exactly the same in English.  If I say:  ’James is man,’ then I am simply describing James as human, and the word man has become a description and not an identification.  If John had said ho theos en ho logos, using a definite article in front of both nouns, then he would definitely have identified the logos (the Word) with God, but because he has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description, and more of an adjective than a noun.  The translation then becomes, to put it rather clumsily, ‘The Word was in the same class as God, belonged to the same order of being as God," (omitted text) . . . John is not here identifying the Word with God.  To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God’."  (The Watchtower was quoting from Barclay’s book, MANY WITNESSES, ONE LORD, 1963, pp. 23, 24). The omitted text said, "The only modern translator who fairly and squarely faced this problem is Kenneth Wuest, who has:  ’The Word was as to his essence essential deity.’  But it is here that the NEB has brilliantly solved the problem with the absolutely accurate rendering:  ’What God was the Word was’." Further in his book Dr. Barclay said on page 27, ". . . God himself took this human flesh upon him." Dr. Donald Shoemaker of Biola College showed the use of his statements to Dr. Barclay and received this in reply.  "The Watchtower article has, by judicious cutting, made me say the opposite of what I meant to say.  What I was meaning to say, as you well know, is that Jesus is . . . of the same stuff as God, that is of the same being as God, but the way the Watchtower has printed my stuff has simply left the conclusion that Jesus is not God in a way that suits themselves."  (Letter dated 26th August, 1977) 3)  The Watchtower, January 15, 1975, page 63, quoting "The Gospel According to St. John," page 3, by Dr. B. F. Westcott. The Watchtower said: "Then, too, in the phrase rendered ‘the Word was a god,’ the term ‘god’ is a predicate noun that describes ‘the Word.’  Says the noted scholar Westcott, coproducer of the famous Westcott and Hort Greek text of the Christian Scriptures:  ’It describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person’." The Watchtower has started their quote in the middle of Dr. Westcott’s statement.  The full statement, before and after the quoted text says:  "the Word was God.  The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in iv. 24.  It is necessarily without the article (Theos not ho Theos) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person.  It would be pure Sabellianism to say ‘the Word was ho theos.’  No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word." Again, the watchtower has quoted a scholar as saying the opposite of what he believes and has actually said. 4)  The Appendix, page 1159, of the KINGDOM INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION OF THE GREEK SCRIPTURES quoting Dr. A.T. Robertson’s, GRAMMAR. The Watchtower said: "On page 761 Robertson’s GRAMMAR says:  ’Among the ancient writers Ho Theos was used of the god of absolute religion in distinction from the mythological gods.’  So, too, John 1:1,2 uses Ho Theos to distinguish Jehovah God from the Word (Logos) as a god . . ." However, Robertson went on to say, "In the N.T. however, while we have Pros Ton Theon (John 1:1,2), it is far more common to find simply Theos, especially in the Epistles.  But the word is treated like a proper name and may have it (Romans 3:5) or not have (8:9)." This completely reverses the Watchtower’s statement which makes it seem as if Robertson is laying down an absolute rule. The Watchtower said again: "In further proof that the omitting of the definite article in the predicate of John 1:1 by the apostle was deliberately meant to show a … read more »

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.980412210439.539024733B- writes Technically speaking, Jesus wasnt God’s avatar. [] ". [] James Foster, BA Just out of curiosity, what is the relevance of this to arw? — janet, BA, STL (if we’re suddenly into things like that…)

    I should think you of all people would enjoy this discussion, Sister Janet — Talesin AS, BS, MA (some of us actually EARNED these)

Response:

Clearly your Ph.D isn’t in Religious Studies, or Christianity.  Yes, the Christians do indeed claim that Jeezus WAS and IS God. "In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God…" Hell, John even opens up with it. What translation James? I have read translations of the John 1:1 that read "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God."

What translation?  *all* of them, with the only exception being the "New World Translation" of the Jehovah’s Witlesses, which you quote above. They made that change in the biblical text to support their doctrinal positions.  Their falsification of the text is completely unsupported by *any* evidence. One of the major challenges facing Bible researchers is the fact the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written between 200 and 300 years after the death of Christ. Up until they were written down, it was orally passed on, the Lord and Lady only know how much errata was introduced

Of course, whether this is true or not is irrelevant to the point I was making.     Ooops! Recent evidence (secular not ecclesiastic) indicates that the book of Matthew may have been a first hand account. I always liked Luke- the only non Jew in the bunch and the only one with a sequel.

Tal- this evidence is *very* "sketchy" and not well received by most scholars… of course anything "new" usually is, so who knows? Let us also not forget that many translations of the bible were politically motivated such as the King James Version.

Or doctrinally motivated, such as the NW version mentioned above. Here is another thing to think about. Up until the invention of the printing press, very few people were literate. Priests and the Church (in this case the Catholic Church) could say anything they wanted and say it was in the Bible. With the invention of the printing press, the leaders in Rome realized they had a real problem on their hands, if people started reading the bible, they were going to find themselves facing a whole lot of angry people.

Which is why it’s so darned nice to have texts that pre-date this period. So the first thing they did was dictate that no members of the Catholic church could own a bible, it was too holy for the common man, this is part of what lead to the revolt by Martin Luther. Since they knew this was only a stop gap messure at best, they saw to it that Bible said what they wanted it to say so it agreed with what they had been saying.

This is a load of crap.  Do some solid research bozo. It is unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited commercial email per United States Code Title 47 Sec. 227. I assess a US $500 charge for reviewing & deleting each unsolicited commercial email. Sending unsolicited commercial email to my email address denotes acceptance of these terms. My posting messages to UseNet neither grants consent to receiving nor is intended to solicit commercial email.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.980412210439.539024733B- writes Technically speaking, Jesus wasnt God’s avatar. [] ". [] James Foster, BA Just out of curiosity, what is the relevance of this to arw? — janet, BA, STL (if we’re suddenly into things like that…)    I should think you of all people would enjoy this discussion, Sister Janet

Hello again! I am a sister only in that I have a brother…  my husband doesn’t like any suggestion that I might be the other sort!  :) But even if I did enjoy the discussion, that would hardly make it relevant… — Talesin AS, BS, MA (some of us actually EARNED these)

Grin….  well, I didn’t earn an AS, and it’s a BA for me, and the STL…  oh, yes, I earned that, ohhhh, yes…  :) — janet Time bears away all things, even the mind….                 Virgil

Response:

est.com Organization: The Rosen Home Distribution: : Technically speaking, Jesus wasnt God’s avatar. An avatar is a God who : manifests itself as human for a period of time. Even the xians dont : claim that Jesus WAS God, literally. Jesus always spoke of God in the : third person, usually refering to it as "Father". : Compare to Krishna, in the Bagavad Gita, who litrerally was God, and : knew it while still "human". In the beginning was the Word (usually considered to be Jesus Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself. John 1:1 Now, if we’re going to continue this with a discussion of the Christian concept of Trinity, take it to a newsgroup that gives a damn, one that is *not* alt.religion.wicca. Many thanks, Marjorie Rosen (Reverend) HPs, Our Lady of the Sycamores Modkin, Soc.Rel.Paganism

Response:

Technically speaking, Jesus wasnt God’s avatar. An avatar is a God who manifests itself as human for a period of time. Even the xians dont claim that Jesus WAS God, literally. Jesus always spoke of God in the third person, usually refering to it as "Father". Compare to Krishna, in the Bagavad Gita, who litrerally was God, and knew it while still "human".

I wrote in this message In the face of mythology & technically speaking, an avatar is he who has integrated within the the ’self’, the communion of ’soul’ and the ’spirit’. hence, in attaining the highest ’sphere’ of existance, my view is that as a whole entity, Jesus has attained the attribute of a god. And just remember that Jesus was but only a man…

Response:

Technically speaking, Jesus wasnt God’s avatar. An avatar is a God who manifests itself as human for a period of time. Even the xians dont claim that Jesus WAS God, literally. Jesus always spoke of God in the third person, usually refering to it as "Father". Compare to Krishna, in the Bagavad Gita, who litrerally was God, and knew it while still "human".

I wrote in this message In the face of mythology & technically speaking, I beleive the creation of a mythological avatar is the formation of aspirational ideals pertaining to the relational truth.  As to  highlight, out of context, he who has integrated within the the ’self’, the communion of ’soul’ and the ’spirit’. Hence, in attaining the highest ’sphere’ of existance, my view is that as a whole entity, Jesus has attained the attribute of a god. And just remember that though Jesus was but a man… Krishne was merely an aspiration

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Technically speaking, Jesus wasnt God’s avatar. An avatar is a God who manifests itself as human for a period of time. Even the xians dont claim that Jesus WAS God, literally. Jesus always spoke of God in the third person, usually refering to it as "Father". Compare to Krishna, in the Bagavad Gita, who litrerally was God, and knew it while still "human". I wrote in this message In the face of mythology & technically speaking, I beleive the creation of a mythological avatar is the formation of aspirational ideals pertaining to the relational truth.  As to  highlight, out of context, he who has integrated within the the ’self’, the communion of ’soul’ and the ’spirit’. Hence, in attaining the highest ’sphere’ of existance, my view is that as a whole entity, Jesus has attained the attribute of a god. And just remember that though Jesus was but a man… Krishna was merely an aspiration

Response:

– PK – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Technically speaking, Jesus wasnt God’s avatar. An avatar is a God who manifests itself as human for a period of time. Even the xians dont claim that Jesus WAS God, literally. Jesus always spoke of God in the third person, usually refering to it as "Father". Compare to Krishna, in the Bagavad Gita, who litrerally was God, and knew it while still "human". I wrote in this message In the face of mythology & technically speaking, an avatar is he who has integrated within the the ’self’, the communion of ’soul’ and the ’spirit’. hence, in attaining the highest ’sphere’ of existance, my view is that as a whole entity, Jesus has attained the attribute of a god. And just remember that Jesus was but only a man… Technically speaking, Victor is right.  An avatar is a god in human form.

– PK – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

You don’t have to apologize.  All paths lead to the source, or so it is said.  You have every right to post.  Besides, it is healthy.  Yes, myself and many others have a deep seated desire to see Christianity end, but at least we aren’t afraid to talk about it.  I would hazard to say that more pagans know more about the Bible than most Christians. Besides, I LOVE to demonstrate to Christians that their OWN beliefs were borrowed or stolen from other (read PAGAN) sources.  I LOVE to point out that the concept of Trinity, the dead and reborn saviour, etc. are simply COPIES of much older traditions. Read Sun Tzu.  It doesn’t just apply to physical warfare.

     To quote John Travolta: "Ain’t it great?" — Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft ™ "Life’s a bitch and then they drop a house on your sister" – W W West

Response:

In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.980412210439.539024733B- writes Technically speaking, Jesus wasnt God’s avatar. [] ". [] James Foster, BA

Just out of curiosity, what is the relevance of this to arw? — janet, BA, STL (if we’re suddenly into things like that…)

Response:

Technically speaking, Jesus wasnt God’s avatar. An avatar is a God who manifests itself as human for a period of time. Even the xians dont claim that Jesus WAS God, literally. Jesus always spoke of God in the third person, usually refering to it as "Father". Compare to Krishna, in the Bagavad Gita, who litrerally was God, and knew it while still "human".

    Excuse me, Doc, but yes, they do. They consider jesus to be part of the trinity- Father, Son, and Holy Ghost- he is the "Son" part. He is considered to be just as much god as the other aspects (where did they get that "triune" thing?) You may know the Trinity as Big Daddy, J.C., and the Spook. — Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft ™ "Life’s a bitch and then they drop a house on your sister" – W W West

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Technically speaking, Jesus wasnt God’s avatar. An avatar is a God who manifests itself as human for a period of time. Even the xians dont claim that Jesus WAS God, literally. Jesus always spoke of God in the third person, usually refering to it as "Father". Clearly your Ph.D isn’t in Religious Studies, or Christianity.  Yes, the Christians do indeed claim that Jeezus WAS and IS God. "In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God…" Hell, John even opens up with it. What translation James? I have read translations of the John 1:1 that read "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God."

    The NASB translates it James’ way. One of the major challenges facing Bible researchers is the fact the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written between 200 and 300 years after the death of Christ. Up until they were written down, it was orally passed on, the Lord and Lady only know how much errata was introduced durring that time.

    Ooops! Recent evidence (secular not ecclesiastic) indicates that the book of Matthew may have been a first hand account. I always liked Luke- the only non Jew in the bunch and the only one with a sequel. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Let us also not forget that many translations of the bible were politically motivated such as the King James Version. Here is another thing to think about. Up until the invention of the printing press, very few people were literate. Priests and the Church (in this case the Catholic Church) could say anything they wanted and say it was in the Bible. With the invention of the printing press, the leaders in Rome realized they had a real problem on their hands, if people started reading the bible, they were going to find themselves facing a whole lot of angry people. So the first thing they did was dictate that no members of the Catholic church could own a bible, it was too holy for the common man, this is part of what lead to the revolt by Martin Luther. Since they knew this was only a stop gap messure at best, they saw to it that Bible said what they wanted it to say so it agreed with what they had been saying.

    Actually I believe the New American Standard Bible goes back at least as far as the Septuagint, and the New International is based on even older texts. Thus bypassing all of the mistranslation, and your arguments. I can’t wait to see what the recently unearthed Dead Sea Scrolls contribute to the "they really didn’t mean it" argument. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – One of the reason that I say this is the fact that I have a copy of the Talmud Jmmanuel, it reads a lot like the book of Matthew. Compare these two verses Matthew 5:3     Blessed are the poor in spirit,     for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Talmud Jmmanuel 5:3     Blessed are they who are rich in spirit     and recognize the truth, for life     belongs to them. Scholars of Matthew have had trouble with this verse [Matt. 5:3] for many decades, arguing that "poor in spirit" must mean either poor in material possessions or humble. The implication from the Talmud Jmmanuel is that the compiler of Matthew preferred "poor in spirit" as a condition which would encourage followers of the new religion to accept its teachings rather than rely upon one’s own knowledge and conscience.

    Gosh, you sure know a lot of bible for a Witch. "Poor" refers to bereft or lacking in sprit. The Jews at this time were under the heel of the Roman Empire and their religious training had degraded to a series of endless genealogies and impossible laws. Their lives were "poor" in spiritual matters. Jesus was hinting at the coming Baptism of the Holy Spirit which would enrich then and allow them to enter the Kingdom of Heaven- i.e. to encourage them to join the new religion. This supposedly occurred on the day of  Pentecost.     Know your enemy, Tony. — Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft ™ "Life’s a bitch and then they drop a house on your sister" – W W West

Response:

You don’t have to apologize.  All paths lead to the source, or so it is said.  You have every right to post.  Besides, it is healthy.  Yes, myself and many others have a deep seated desire to see Christianity end, but at least we aren’t afraid to talk about it.  I would hazard to say that more pagans know more about the Bible than most Christians. Besides, I LOVE to demonstrate to Christians that their OWN beliefs were borrowed or stolen from other (read PAGAN) sources.  I LOVE to point out that the concept of Trinity, the dead and reborn saviour, etc. are simply COPIES of much older traditions. Read Sun Tzu.  It doesn’t just apply to physical warfare.

Response:

In the face of mythology & technically speaking, an avatar is he who has integrated within the the ’self’, the communion of ’soul’ and the ’spirit’. hence, in attaining the highest ’sphere’ of existance, my view is that as a whole entity, Jesus has attained the attribute of a god. And just remember that Jesus was but only a man…

Response: Avatar Av`a*tar", n. [Skr. avat[^a]ra descent; ava from + root t? to cross, pass over.] 1.  The descent of a deity to earth, and his incarnation as a man or an animal The basic tenant of Christian faith (well, the majority concensus – I don’t want to start a flame war by hearing a lot of "not me’s") is that GOD = JESUS = HOLY SPIRIT (i.e. the concept of the Trinity). Considering their Jesus was on Earth in human form, by definition he is an avatar.  Okay?  Does this mean you or I *have* to believe this? No.  But their story fits the definition of what an avatar is.

Response:

Technically speaking, Jesus wasnt God’s avatar. An avatar is a God who manifests itself as human for a period of time. Even the xians dont claim that Jesus WAS God, literally. Jesus always spoke of God in the third person, usually refering to it as "Father". Clearly your Ph.D isn’t in Religious Studies, or Christianity.  Yes, the Christians do indeed claim that Jeezus WAS and IS God. "In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God…" Hell, John even opens up with it.

What translation James? I have read translations of the John 1:1 that read "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a God." One of the major challenges facing Bible researchers is the fact the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written between 200 and 300 years after the death of Christ. Up until they were written down, it was orally passed on, the Lord and Lady only know how much errata was introduced durring that time. Let us also not forget that many translations of the bible were politically motivated such as the King James Version. Here is another thing to think about. Up until the invention of the printing press, very few people were literate. Priests and the Church (in this case the Catholic Church) could say anything they wanted and say it was in the Bible. With the invention of the printing press, the leaders in Rome realized they had a real problem on their hands, if people started reading the bible, they were going to find themselves facing a whole lot of angry people. So the first thing they did was dictate that no members of the Catholic church could own a bible, it was too holy for the common man, this is part of what lead to the revolt by Martin Luther. Since they knew this was only a stop gap messure at best, they saw to it that Bible said what they wanted it to say so it agreed with what they had been saying. One of the reason that I say this is the fact that I have a copy of the Talmud Jmmanuel, it reads a lot like the book of Matthew. Compare these two verses Matthew 5:3     Blessed are the poor in spirit,     for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Talmud Jmmanuel 5:3     Blessed are they who are rich in spirit     and recognize the truth, for life     belongs to them. Scholars of Matthew have had trouble with this verse [Matt. 5:3] for many decades, arguing that "poor in spirit" must mean either poor in material possessions or humble. The implication from the Talmud Jmmanuel is that the compiler of Matthew preferred "poor in spirit" as a condition which would encourage followers of the new religion to accept its teachings rather than rely upon one’s own knowledge and conscience.

Response:

I love the bible. If it is read with an open and loving heart, it can show you how to be unlimited. I also hate the bible in that if you read it with a closed heart and a closed mind, it will tell you your anger and hatred of your enemies is justified. I study world religions, my main experience being in chrisitianity, wicca, and shamanistic views. If you see me post anything with a christian flavor to this newsgroup, I appologize to those who still have scars from the bible thumping idiots who think they are the only people in the universe who are worthy of God’s love and mercy. I am seeking to learn more, as always, about God, The Goddess, and everything around me. I focus my studies on those based in Love, though. I believe that any destructive form of magic is a misuse of the Goddess’ power. I see it not as good and evil, but as productive and destructive. I wish to be a co-creator, not a demolisher. I wish no one harm, and I bless everyone. Love and light to you all. — Jaedreth Gywnblaidd (aka Jason C.)

Response:

In the face of mythology & technically speaking, I beleive the creation of a mythological avatar is the formation of aspirational ideals pertaining to the relational truth.  As to  highlight, out of context, he who has integrated within the the ’self’, the communion of ’soul’ and the ’spirit’. Hence, in attaining the highest ’sphere’ of existance, my view is that as a whole entity, Jesus has attained the attribute of a god.

this makes no sense at all, as near as I can tell. And just remember that though Jesus was but a man… Krishne was merely an aspiration

this too. best, josh

Response:

I think that depends on what Christian church your talking about, the ones I came out of, state Jesus is God, and they believe he is God, I was then and still am baffled by the whole trinity concept. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Technically speaking, Jesus wasnt God’s avatar. An avatar is a God who manifests itself as human for a period of time. Even the xians dont claim that Jesus WAS God, literally. Jesus always spoke of God in the third person, usually refering to it as "Father". Compare to Krishna, in the Bagavad Gita, who litrerally was God, and knew it while still "human".

Response:

Technically speaking, Jesus wasnt God’s avatar. An avatar is a God who manifests itself as human for a period of time. Even the xians dont claim that Jesus WAS God, literally. Jesus always spoke of God in the third person, usually refering to it as "Father".

Clearly your Ph.D isn’t in Religious Studies, or Christianity.  Yes, the Christians do indeed claim that Jeezus WAS and IS God. "In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God…" Hell, John even opens up with it. Beyond the Biblical sources (I and my Father are ONE- He who has seen ME has seen the Father- etc.) you have the copious evidence from councils throughout the ages. Now, you may think the Biblical authors and council members were full of shit (as I do) but you cannot claim that Christians (Then and Now) do not believe that Jeezus IS God. James Foster, BA

Response:

Technically speaking, Jesus wasnt God’s avatar. An avatar is a God who manifests itself as human for a period of time. Even the xians dont claim that Jesus WAS God, literally. Jesus always spoke of God in the third person, usually refering to it as "Father". Compare to Krishna, in the Bagavad Gita, who litrerally was God, and knew it while still "human".

Response:

Related Posts