Jesus' Origin Story

[popsthebuilder]

What does "abject to the will of God" mean?

Sorry, I should have worded it differently. I meant god finds no pleasure in it.

faith in selfless unity for good

[popsthebuilder]

I can't respond to each one these. 

Yes the message is so clear that's why there are many branches of Christianity right? Because the message was clear! Christians are totally unified and don't disagree with the meaning of the teachings. You are talking some major bullshit here and you know it!

You still haven't explained how you determine what's been inspired and what wasn't. What are your guide lines? No matter how you slice it that's called cherry picking!

And are you changing your story or what? The bible is the perfect word of god, yet we need to other books to get the whole story? They are all just pieces of the picture right? What about Buddhist writings do you count those as a piece of the picture. If not you're picking and choosing. 

Once again I can't determine your sense of logic here. You've made a lot of claims with out really explaining how you arrived at the conclusion. I have nothing to go on but your word. Sorry but that's not good enough!

I'll ask once again

How do you know what is inspired and what is not?

Firstly each of my previous statements were responses to yours.

I have already explained the mechanism.

I already told you that the varied sects are a sign of misdirection.

I said little about Christianity being unified but that all the faithful of GOD are unified.

It would be cherry picking if I picked and chose what I accepted from scripture. I already said I accept it all, but that misdirection can be readily seen in a couple of parts of the ot, which we know is of the Jew which we know did not please GOD due to manipulation.

My story....Not hardly.

Never not once did I say it was perfect in edited translated form. You don't need other sacred texts to get the whole story. That isn't what I said. They are so similar that they could be considered nearly the same. And yes, I consider the direct teaching of he Buddha to be profitable for the direction of man by the will of GOD.

I know it is all inspired but that some men sought their own gains at times. I will not be retyping the "mechanism" you requested.

Look over the previous post again and ask more specific questions. I am tired and just got out of the hospital. I will gladly discuss whatever you ask, but just don't have the drive at this moment to attempt to repeat myself fully. I understand that most of what I say comes off as nonsense. It is the subject matter, my poor communication skills, and fatigue affecting me.


Be patient please friend.

I do look forward to your sharp reply.

peace

(Selfless conscience.) Sorry no explanation



faith in selfless unity for good

[Baruch]

However, to return to the original post, Jesus' origin is very much historically rooted in the origin stories of mythologies that predated Christianity.  Primitive people were not very imaginative and so they copied from what other cultures believed.

It is hard to make up new ideas, that are both novel and good.  We reuse what is good to us.  Mindless and tasteless novelty, created modern art ;-(

[Cavebear]

It is you imagining that all theism is the simple product of imagination that is the issue. How would one go about using their imagination to determine truth?

They cannot.

Well, first, I would note to myself that no theisms have the slightest shred of evidence to support the concepts.  Then, I suppose I would use some imagination to create thought experiments that could be tested for internal logic and possible external evidence. Then I might go seek that evidence to see if it matched the thought experiment. 

In that way, one might discover, oh let's see, "planets", "tectonic movement", and "fossils" that could be determined by age...  That would be a start.

[Baruch]

Epistemology against ... music, sculpture etc.  Philistinism.

[trdsf]

I did not say that I knew it was the inspired Word of GOD because it had virtuous lessons in it. And surely wouldn't equate any of the actual writers to GOD... ever.

The mechanism for such is knowing the will of GOD within ones own self. If you are aware of the Will of GOD for man and understand that different times called for different testaments it helps. The selfless conscience will guide any who actually seek. And like I said, or tried to convey; even the misdirection one can find in the pages isnt really misdirection if it is known of and spoken of within the same book. It is a testament to the misdirection of the Jew. What I'm getting at is that if greed or want of man can be noted in the unbiased reading then it isn't aligned with the will of GOD. There is no discounting any of it whatsoever. The words that are within the pages of each individual bible are the exact amount that are supposed to be in them. Even the misdirection and confusion within the book is for a reason which GOD permitted.

What else would you take from it but the lessons. It is not a history book. No cherry picking whatsoever. I do not deny any part of the bible that I know of. There was a new testament because there was a need for it.

I can show you proof that they all work in unison towards the same goal and all can be likened to different branches of the same tree of life, but I would attempt to pro e that the bible wasn't too motivated in part by previous accounts. I think I already mentioned something like that anyway.

I know what is in the bible by reading the book, recently in multiple forms. Weren't the Greeks a studious people? I am confident in the translations. The dead Sea scrolls seem pretty accurate to me, but my opinion is really based on ignorance as far as that is concerned.

Again; there are multiple ways to check the validity of the words within the bible, and it can be verified with other books as well.

That was a good argument though.

A general Christian who believes in a literally inerrant bible would be in trouble.

peace

faith in selfless unity for good

Your fundamental position here seems to be, "It's the inspired word of god because I believe it's the inspired word of god (at least which bits of it that I accept as the inspired word of god)".

Which is fine for yourself, but serves no evidentiary purpose -- it's a perfectly circular argument.

I won't even dispute that there are some good lessons in the bible.  But so too are there in every other religious text, and in countless secular ones.  Good lessons simply aren't good enough to distinguish it.

There isn't anything really unique about the bible.  Every argument about the validity of it applies to every other religious text, and you will find similar messages in all of them, although of course specific congruences from one to the next will vary -- the similarity between the concepts of the Tao in Taoism, and of Slack in the Church of the SubGenius is one of my favorite examples.

As far as translations go, if you can read Koine Greek, wonderful -- although it's not settled that the various NT documents were originally in Greek in the first place (except, I think, for John) and the early Greek fragments can easily have been translations of earlier Hebrew texts, or Aramaic oral traditions.  Certainly none of them are contemporaneous with the purported events.  Certainly any English-language version will have gone through multiple translations on its way to the 21st century, many of which, like the King James, were explicitly political, designed to favor one interpretation of the bible over another.

[doorknob]

Firstly each of my previous statements were responses to yours.

I have already explained the mechanism.

I already told you that the varied sects are a sign of misdirection.

I said little about Christianity being unified but that all the faithful of GOD are unified.

It would be cherry picking if I picked and chose what I accepted from scripture. I already said I accept it all, but that misdirection can be readily seen in a couple of parts of the ot, which we know is of the Jew which we know did not please GOD due to manipulation.

My story....Not hardly.

Never not once did I say it was perfect in edited translated form. You don't need other sacred texts to get the whole story. That isn't what I said. They are so similar that they could be considered nearly the same. And yes, I consider the direct teaching of he Buddha to be profitable for the direction of man by the will of GOD.

I know it is all inspired but that some men sought their own gains at times. I will not be retyping the "mechanism" you requested.

Look over the previous post again and ask more specific questions. I am tired and just got out of the hospital. I will gladly discuss whatever you ask, but just don't have the drive at this moment to attempt to repeat myself fully. I understand that most of what I say comes off as nonsense. It is the subject matter, my poor communication skills, and fatigue affecting me.


Be patient please friend.

I do look forward to your sharp reply.

peace

(Selfless conscience.) Sorry no explanation



faith in selfless unity for good

I'm sorry you just got out of the hospital.

I agree that you are a poor communicator because I have a hard time gathering the point you are trying to make.

I have read every post. So far I have not found a clear answer on your method for determining what is inspired. The Bible isn't self evident or would easily accept it as such.

Bringing back to my point that if god inspired the Bible you would think he would inspire something that doesn't get lost in translation. The fact that it is lost in translation it seems like god doesn't use much wisdom. Also if men have corrupted the Bible then how do you know what is inspired. If you're saying that the whole book was inspired yet it was corrupted by men then the book isn't perfect. So how did you decide what is valuable and what isn't? And doesn't the fact that it's corrupted prove that it wasn't divinely inspired? You can't have it both ways.

Much of what you say is almost gibberish. I can't determine what you do believe and what you don't believe. And what you believe conveniently changes to suit your needs at the time.

Or how you came to believe it. If you can't even explain what your logic for believing is then how can you expect us to believe you?

We aren't mindless children who haven't thought things through completely. And nothing you've said is profound or even something we haven't heard a million times before.

One last thing, food for thought

"Never not once did I say it was perfect in edited translated form. You don't need other sacred texts to get the whole story. That isn't what I said. They are so similar that they could be considered nearly the same. And yes, I consider the direct teaching of he Buddha to be profitable for the direction of man by the will of GOD."

How do you know that Buddhism wasn't inspired by god?

And if you can accept Buddhism as having some wisdom from the will of god then what is your take on theistic satanism?

[Unbeliever]

I agree that you are a poor communicator because I have a hard time gathering the point you are trying to make.

Much like that God he claims to believe in. For an omniscient, omnipotent God he's a very confusing writer.

Much of what you say is almost gibberish.

Yep, just like that God of his.

[Cavebear]

Ignoring issues like "first cause" and all that, one of my problems with the accuracy of deity-imaginings is that they are too much like us.  IF there was a true deity, it would be so far betond our comprehension that it may as well not exist.

Ants trying to understand humans, except even that is too similar.  A stone trying to understand a spaceship is closer.  But as the math folks say, infinity +1 is still no closer to infinity.

[Baruch]

Ignoring issues like "first cause" and all that, one of my problems with the accuracy of deity-imaginings is that they are too much like us.  IF there was a true deity, it would be so far betond our comprehension that it may as well not exist.

Ants trying to understand humans, except even that is too similar.  A stone trying to understand a spaceship is closer.  But as the math folks say, infinity +1 is still no closer to infinity.

So you prefer Cthulhu?  I have been told by a computer algorithm, that my writing is like Lovecraft ... so is that why you are curious about me?  Don't worry, if you worship me, you will be the last one eaten.

[Cavebear]

So you prefer Cthulhu?  I have been told by a computer algorithm, that my writing is like Lovecraft ... so is that why you are curious about me?  Don't worry, if you worship me, you will be the last one eaten.

You probably bore yourself too.  Cthulhumeans no more to me than Mithra, Thor, or Yeway etc, etc, etc.

Big yawn...

[Baruch]

You probably bore yourself too.  Cthulhumeans no more to me than Mithra, Thor, or Yeway etc, etc, etc.

Big yawn...

Yeah, those hibernations are hard to wake up from ;-)

[Cavebear]

Yeah, those hibernations are hard to wake up from ;-)

Do you actually THINK in non-sequitors, or do you invent them just to make no sense?

[Baruch]

Do you actually THINK in non-sequitors, or do you invent them just to make no sense?

Logical fallacy = anything from the mouth or pen of a non-Vulcan.

[Cavebear]

Logical fallacy = anything from the mouth or pen of a non-Vulcan.

The defense rests...