Originally posted by Mat
I do not believe in the Bible as any more than… second (third)- hand histories.
Isn’t the New Testament written in the first person, rather than being a record of an oral tradition?
Isn’t the New Testament written in the first person, rather than being a record of an oral tradition?
There are many passage from the bible that are written in both first person tense and third.
But that doesn’t mean the authors were at the scene.
Especially in the case of the New Testament which was written approx 100 - 300 years after Jesus was said to have walked the earth. And further copied and embellished over time as it was copied and copied againa and again until eventually a few accepted editions made it to a printing press. Many of the hand written copies are completely lost in antiquity somewhere.
It is known that the Gospel according to Mark was the first one written and that the later versions were practically copied verbatim from it and massaged to fit the zeitgeist of their time.
Particularly Matthew’s gospel which directly targeted the teachings of the Pharasees.
So, it’s pretty much all still second and third hand knowledge that was brought out of an otherwise oral tradition.
Scholastically speaking that is. As I am not Christian, I can’t speak to the validity of the content regarding the deification of Jesus. Other than it is not part of my core belief system.
Originally posted by Kung Lek
There are many passage from the bible that are written in both first person tense and third.
I didn’t mean literary sense, I meant literally written by the alleged author as a written work.
Especially in the case of the New Testament which was written approx 100 - 300 years after Jesus was said to have walked the earth.
The academic consensus I am familiar with tends to date the books of the New Testament to the first century, contemporary to their alleged authors. Examples are Galatians at 49 AD, 1 Thessalonians at 51 AD, Mark at 68 AD, Matthew between 70-85 AD, and Luke between 80-95 AD (1).
Perhaps you are confusing the canonization of the New Testament in 397 AD (2) with its writing?
And further copied and embellished over time as it was copied and copied againa and again until eventually a few accepted editions made it to a printing press.
While there are certainly editions of the Bible which are many edits away from the originals, there are also earlier editions, in English translation even, which are available for study in themselves or for comparison to these later works. For instance, these people are offering a translation of the Septuagint, an edition of the Old Testament which is dated to 300-100 BC. A similarly conservative edition of the New Testament is available in English translation here.
It is known that the Gospel according to Mark was the first one written and that the later versions were practically copied verbatim from it
I presume you mean that Mark was the earliest gospel written, as opposed to the earliest New Testament text. It is believed that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source (3), but not that the other twenty-four books of the New Testament did. I’m not sure why this you imply this is problematic.
<Matthew and Luke were> massaged <from Mark> to fit the zeitgeist of their time.
Given that Mark is dated to 65-80 AD (4), Matthew to 60-85 AD (5), and Luke to 40-150 AD (6), this doesn’t seem like a reasonable thesis.
Mat
Luke 18:10-14
"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. ‘I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ "But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ “I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
Re: Mat
Originally posted by Water Dragon
[B]Luke 18:10-14
"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. ‘I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ "But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ “I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.” [/B]
So basically as long as you understand that what you do for a living to support yourself and your family does harm to others, yet you have no other recourse - AND as long as you understand that this equates to having to do something bad and really feel for those that you harm… then you’re OK?
Just the first interpretation that went through my head after reading that.
http://www.second-skin.net/details.php?item_number=201
http://www.second-skin.net/details.php?item_number=200
Well, now we know where Kristoffer does his shopping (and surfing).
hey, I felt i should add something to the discussion
Just trying to ‘fill the holes’ in the topic, eh?
I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist that one.
Re: Re: Mat
Originally posted by FngSaiYuk
[B]So basically as long as you understand that what you do for a living to support yourself and your family does harm to others, yet you have no other recourse - AND as long as you understand that this equates to having to do something bad and really feel for those that you harm… then you’re OK?
Just the first interpretation that went through my head after reading that. [/B]
What I get from the passage is the person who says, “Hey everybody, look at me! Look how holy I am. I’m glad I’m not a terrible person like all of you.” is missing the point and not a good person at all.
But the person who says, “Lord, I know I mess up, and I know that I have done bad things, but please have mercy and show me the way.” is the one who gets it.
LOL! How did a question about Buddhism/ Taoism turn into a thread on Christianity? 
Bro, read the first reply on the thread. We’ve been talking about Christianity along with Buddhism and Taoism since page 1.
Exactly! Check out the very first post. It doesn’t look like he’s aking about Christianity. LOL!
Cheers WD, that’s not quite what I was getting at. Do you have any more chapters you can point me to (I’m not testing your knowledge of scripture so if you don’t offhand don’t worry about it!!) which may be of further relevance to people practising what they preach?
TBH, I’m more interested than the people doing good bit than the whole dialogue with the Supreme bit.
The thing that really turned me off Christianity was that if I just go about my life doing good things (even if sure, I know I mess up) and never set foot in a church… I’m not gonna make it in the afterlife.
I guess it’s the metaphysical equivalent of Groucho Marx not wanting to be a member of any club that would accept him!
BTW do you guys have an image of the afterlife you wanna get to, or is it just a warm fuzziness? And do you have an image in your mind (of God?) when you pray? Of course, if you don’t wanna answer on a public forum, I understand…
Originally posted by Mat
The thing that really turned me off Christianity was that if I just go about my life doing good things and never set foot in a church… I’m not gonna make it in the afterlife.
This is more of a Protestant thing specifically than a Christian thing generally.
“Even as a tree has a single trunk but many branches and leaves, so is there one true and perfect Religion, but it becomes many religions as it passes through the human medium. The one Religion is beyond all speech; imperfect men put it in such language as they can command and their words are interpreted by other men, equally imperfect. Hence the necessity of tolerance, which does not mean indifference to one’s faith, but a more intelligent and purer love for it. True knowledge of Religion breaks down the barriers between faith and faith.”
Mahatma Gandhi.
It is also notable that no matter who you are, when you selflessly help someone, you yourself feel better about yourself.
That is human nature. What better way to feel better than to make someone else feel better?
hmmm?
Originally posted by Christopher M
This is more of a Protestant thing specifically than a Christian thing generally.
Really? For clarification, do you mean my attitude is more of a protestant thing, or that the quoted attitude I oppose is? I’m guessing the latter, but why do you say that?
I’m Protestant, Baptist to be specific, and I’ve never heard of the no church = no heaven fine print.