IIT we discuss and study the Bible. I will be using the King James Version and will take the stance of a fundamental literalist, which is a bit redundant, but these days there exist many that claim to be fundamental but reject the literal interpretation of Scripture when they encounter something they don't agree or understand. I am not a Bible scholar, I'm not a pastor, I don't currently attend any denomination's church service. I'm just an anon that really like to study the Bible. Feel free to argue with me, I could be completely wrong and I hope to learn more about the Bible along the way.
I will post below my first study topic and what I have researched about it. Hopefully it will be interesting and somewhat engaging.
/ub/ - Überhengst
Becoming better
File (): 9383C489FF59AA7EC7E7559014DF0B8F-245693.gif (239.9 KB, 840x618, biblereading.gif)
518 replies and 206 files omitted.
>>4870
Who said it wasnt from the book? Knowledge of Jesus comes and begins from the Bible. However, when you research other traditions you find Jesus in different form, context, and name, in them. And then when history of religion is studied and factored in, one finds certain elements of the Bible depictions to be exaggerations or outright fabrications.
Tl;dr Not the whole Bible, just parts of it
Who said it wasnt from the book? Knowledge of Jesus comes and begins from the Bible. However, when you research other traditions you find Jesus in different form, context, and name, in them. And then when history of religion is studied and factored in, one finds certain elements of the Bible depictions to be exaggerations or outright fabrications.
Tl;dr Not the whole Bible, just parts of it
>>4871
>However, when you research other traditions you find Jesus in different form, context, and name, in them. And then when history of religion is studied and factored in, one finds certain elements of the Bible depictions to be exaggerations or outright fabrications.
>Tl;dr Not the whole Bible, just parts of it
That's where you are wrong bucko.
>However, when you research other traditions you find Jesus in different form, context, and name, in them. And then when history of religion is studied and factored in, one finds certain elements of the Bible depictions to be exaggerations or outright fabrications.
>Tl;dr Not the whole Bible, just parts of it
That's where you are wrong bucko.
File (): CC112D7F9A126BA83C4A8502DFBD591F-328978.png (321.3 KB, 570x588, CC112D7F9A126BA83C4A8502DFBD591F-328978.png)
File (): 4FDAB0ADF8088AAA1F9F42BBE9A15DA2-305489.png (298.3 KB, 624x616, 4FDAB0ADF8088AAA1F9F42BBE9A15DA2-305489.png)
On the topic of orthodoxy, care to comment on these nuggets pulled from the flatty?
The insinuation being that scripture supports flat earth and by virtue anything anti-flat is anti-bible/christian
The insinuation being that scripture supports flat earth and by virtue anything anti-flat is anti-bible/christian
>>4895
If pressed he will claim to have, and then wave his hand vaguely at the pages upon pages of unsupportive nonsense he has posted and refuse to 'spoonfeed' when citations are asked for.
My point in presenting his,... 'content' is to illustrate that it is readily easy for an individual to maintain their convictions even when unsupported by evidence, especially when the evidence is subjective. Im sure you have felt that way about assertions I've made, and vice versa.
And for all my cheeky quips, thr only conviction I maintain is that:
There is literal truth to the Bible and its accounts, however much of it is plainly untrue, as evidenced by historical record. Yet, in spite of this, these many sections maintain that they are 100% accurate and valid.
The walls of Jericho, being an easy example.
My position is that as elegant and largely accurate as the Bible (as a whole) is, theres two problems: The first is the millenia(s) divide between the time things were written, coupled with the psychological failings of humanity - especially when dealing with authoritarian constructs, politics, power/hierarchy structures, etc; one must always be aware of the culture at the time and the degree of malfeasance people are want to employ to serve their own ends (whitewashing either during or in the aftermath).
The second is the inability/unwillingness to redress previous convictions, theories, and assumptions.
We can agree that many currently-held positions wrt scripture are no different than those held say, in the inquisition (again, Im approaching this assuming there isnt a consistent catastrophe that resets humanity every few hundred to thousand years).
And while this isnt an argument, the idea that the Inquisition was 'doing Christianity proper-like' is... unsupportable.
I rather think Jesus would view the inquisition as an abomination.
If pressed he will claim to have, and then wave his hand vaguely at the pages upon pages of unsupportive nonsense he has posted and refuse to 'spoonfeed' when citations are asked for.
My point in presenting his,... 'content' is to illustrate that it is readily easy for an individual to maintain their convictions even when unsupported by evidence, especially when the evidence is subjective. Im sure you have felt that way about assertions I've made, and vice versa.
And for all my cheeky quips, thr only conviction I maintain is that:
There is literal truth to the Bible and its accounts, however much of it is plainly untrue, as evidenced by historical record. Yet, in spite of this, these many sections maintain that they are 100% accurate and valid.
The walls of Jericho, being an easy example.
My position is that as elegant and largely accurate as the Bible (as a whole) is, theres two problems: The first is the millenia(s) divide between the time things were written, coupled with the psychological failings of humanity - especially when dealing with authoritarian constructs, politics, power/hierarchy structures, etc; one must always be aware of the culture at the time and the degree of malfeasance people are want to employ to serve their own ends (whitewashing either during or in the aftermath).
The second is the inability/unwillingness to redress previous convictions, theories, and assumptions.
We can agree that many currently-held positions wrt scripture are no different than those held say, in the inquisition (again, Im approaching this assuming there isnt a consistent catastrophe that resets humanity every few hundred to thousand years).
And while this isnt an argument, the idea that the Inquisition was 'doing Christianity proper-like' is... unsupportable.
I rather think Jesus would view the inquisition as an abomination.
Got away from my point.
My point is, the Jesus I know
which would likely be refuted because I equate him with Lucifer, which is contrary to the Jesus you know, even though historical evidence of religions supports my premise
is more offended by ignorance (both willful and negligent) than entertainment of ideas.
More directly, Jesus does not support being ignorant and superficially dismissive of unexplored ideas. The reason being, the only entity that can be said to authoritively speak of God is God and His charges. And yet, without entertaining otherwise antithetical ideas one cant rightly - with God's divine inspiration - discern between truth and fabrication.
At the same time, the Jesus I know is no fan of taking what others have said as gospel (pun intended) and not critically analyzing. This is important because it adopts the stance of 'I have good ideas that Im confident in, but I cant rely on others to develop my own understanding, because that makes me dependable on others for my relationship with God, and who knows how much more there may be to learn?'.
My point is, the Jesus I know
which would likely be refuted because I equate him with Lucifer, which is contrary to the Jesus you know, even though historical evidence of religions supports my premise
is more offended by ignorance (both willful and negligent) than entertainment of ideas.
More directly, Jesus does not support being ignorant and superficially dismissive of unexplored ideas. The reason being, the only entity that can be said to authoritively speak of God is God and His charges. And yet, without entertaining otherwise antithetical ideas one cant rightly - with God's divine inspiration - discern between truth and fabrication.
At the same time, the Jesus I know is no fan of taking what others have said as gospel (pun intended) and not critically analyzing. This is important because it adopts the stance of 'I have good ideas that Im confident in, but I cant rely on others to develop my own understanding, because that makes me dependable on others for my relationship with God, and who knows how much more there may be to learn?'.
>>4871
>However, when you research other traditions you find Jesus in different form, context, and name, in them.
Those are other religions. How can you consider those to be valid sources for Christianity, and by what standards do you admit them?
>However, when you research other traditions you find Jesus in different form, context, and name, in them.
Those are other religions. How can you consider those to be valid sources for Christianity, and by what standards do you admit them?
File (): 7C33AC058089DA82746E8EF26E295F83-958555.png (936.1 KB, 1326x1000, 1611359812793-x2.webp.png)
File (): 5C69127406DBB5E118F219EDF7B3C9B7-24824.jpg (24.2 KB, 455x467, IMG_5370.png.jpg)
>>4844
>>4861
>'Jesus' is the most recent iteration of the Luciferian archetype. Admitting, the name has changed innumerable times over the course of millenia
This is Muslim-tier prophet copy-pasting.
It's one thing to note that different religions and cultures have similar archetypes in their mythos, but it's anothe step to apply all of those separate distinct cultures to Christianity and claim that it's the same religion, because that changes the religion entirely. It's without doubt that Christianity has similarities to other religons, like Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Roman paganism, or any of the mythologies based on the Vedas: he concept of goliness spirituality and worship is a very human one, but those other religions aren't relevant to the study of Christanity. Just because two things look the same (Christas the Son of God vs Greek/Roman demigods) doesn't mean they're necessrily related. Just because two things are related by common roots (Christianity vs what is known as modern Judaism) doesn't mean they're compatible. Just because two religions share similar ideologies (Christian asceticism vs Buddhist aceticism) doesn't mean they're the exact same thing, or even "manifestations" o the same things. Different religious traditions are distint from one another, and te differences matter as much as the parallels do.
If you use sources other than those passed down by Christians, you're effectivey poisoning the well by applying pagan ideologies and inventing new literary parrallels where there were none, on no historical or theological basis other than you feel like they fit well together from your very subjetive viewpoint: that's not bible study, that's bible writing. At that point, you might as well start your own church.
>>4861
>'Jesus' is the most recent iteration of the Luciferian archetype. Admitting, the name has changed innumerable times over the course of millenia
This is Muslim-tier prophet copy-pasting.
It's one thing to note that different religions and cultures have similar archetypes in their mythos, but it's anothe step to apply all of those separate distinct cultures to Christianity and claim that it's the same religion, because that changes the religion entirely. It's without doubt that Christianity has similarities to other religons, like Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Roman paganism, or any of the mythologies based on the Vedas: he concept of goliness spirituality and worship is a very human one, but those other religions aren't relevant to the study of Christanity. Just because two things look the same (Christas the Son of God vs Greek/Roman demigods) doesn't mean they're necessrily related. Just because two things are related by common roots (Christianity vs what is known as modern Judaism) doesn't mean they're compatible. Just because two religions share similar ideologies (Christian asceticism vs Buddhist aceticism) doesn't mean they're the exact same thing, or even "manifestations" o the same things. Different religious traditions are distint from one another, and te differences matter as much as the parallels do.
If you use sources other than those passed down by Christians, you're effectivey poisoning the well by applying pagan ideologies and inventing new literary parrallels where there were none, on no historical or theological basis other than you feel like they fit well together from your very subjetive viewpoint: that's not bible study, that's bible writing. At that point, you might as well start your own church.
>>4871
>when you research other traditions you find Jesus in different form, context, and name, in them. And then when history of religion is studied and factored in, one finds certain elements of the Bible depictions to be exaggerations or outright fabrications.
On what basis do you consider those "other traditions" to be relevant to Christianity?
Christianity has similarities to a lot of religions, but the teachings of Christianity are distinctly separate from the rest.
>>4849
Enlightenment is not the same as Salvation, though both concepts are highly subjective if you apply non-christian sources.
Chrstianity promises salvation from this existence andthe hellfire in its invitable collapse, as well as immortality and peace to those who put ther faith in christ. It hardly says anything about enlightenment, because enlightenment is hardly relevant to salvation by god.
>Enlightenment has nothing to do with religious practices or zealotry
This is correct.
>when you research other traditions you find Jesus in different form, context, and name, in them. And then when history of religion is studied and factored in, one finds certain elements of the Bible depictions to be exaggerations or outright fabrications.
On what basis do you consider those "other traditions" to be relevant to Christianity?
Christianity has similarities to a lot of religions, but the teachings of Christianity are distinctly separate from the rest.
>>4849
Enlightenment is not the same as Salvation, though both concepts are highly subjective if you apply non-christian sources.
Chrstianity promises salvation from this existence andthe hellfire in its invitable collapse, as well as immortality and peace to those who put ther faith in christ. It hardly says anything about enlightenment, because enlightenment is hardly relevant to salvation by god.
>Enlightenment has nothing to do with religious practices or zealotry
This is correct.
>>4832
>there is no 'the' devil
Nowhere in the Christianity is the term "devil" or any derivative variation thereof, referred to as anything but singular.
>that THAT term is effectively a sub-race of infernal.
No it fucking isn't. It has only ever been used to refer to a singular entity, it's name roughly meaing "Blasphemer", "Accuser" or "Arguer", referring to the one who defied god.
"Devil" has only ever beenused plurally in pop culture and anime and other retards who don't know wtf they're talking about.
>sub-race of infernal.
>sub-race
There are no "subraces" of infernal: the are demons, aka angels. Angels are spiritual entities who serve god referred to in the bible as daemons/daimons, a name that means "spirit" "intelligence" or "higher power". Daemon/daimon is in several places used plural,
Demons and angels are the same exact thing; we just wo words to distinguish the two. When Satan fell from heven, he took one third of his fellow angels with him, and we call those "demons" in english because we prefer to think of angels as good, when they are in fact all daemons, created as angels by god in service of god.
>there is no 'the' devil
Nowhere in the Christianity is the term "devil" or any derivative variation thereof, referred to as anything but singular.
>that THAT term is effectively a sub-race of infernal.
No it fucking isn't. It has only ever been used to refer to a singular entity, it's name roughly meaing "Blasphemer", "Accuser" or "Arguer", referring to the one who defied god.
"Devil" has only ever beenused plurally in pop culture and anime and other retards who don't know wtf they're talking about.
>sub-race of infernal.
>sub-race
There are no "subraces" of infernal: the are demons, aka angels. Angels are spiritual entities who serve god referred to in the bible as daemons/daimons, a name that means "spirit" "intelligence" or "higher power". Daemon/daimon is in several places used plural,
Demons and angels are the same exact thing; we just wo words to distinguish the two. When Satan fell from heven, he took one third of his fellow angels with him, and we call those "demons" in english because we prefer to think of angels as good, when they are in fact all daemons, created as angels by god in service of god.
>>4832
>- Satan
>- A specific entity
>- A/the antichrist
You are confusing the devil with the antichrist. The devil is a specific entity, but the antichrist has room to be an archetype, because its role isn't in the past or present (the Devil has always existed) but in the future, and it could take any form. The antichrist serves the devil, but they are not the same thing, presemably as an entity, organization, institution or concept that serves to eclipse or subvert the concept of god in our society and distract people from salvation.
>- Satan
>- A specific entity
>- A/the antichrist
You are confusing the devil with the antichrist. The devil is a specific entity, but the antichrist has room to be an archetype, because its role isn't in the past or present (the Devil has always existed) but in the future, and it could take any form. The antichrist serves the devil, but they are not the same thing, presemably as an entity, organization, institution or concept that serves to eclipse or subvert the concept of god in our society and distract people from salvation.
>>4903
Not entirely correct as you can find devil in the plural. However, this is fully interchangeable with demons if you swap the term in the text where the plural does appear, as it never attributes devils with the adversary role, but only those that harm through possession and supernatural attacks. In places where devil is in the singular, it can't be traded with demon because there is only one head of the demon order, which are fallen angels. The reason Satan is at the head is because he led the rebellion. Never can you find a demon other than Satan in the Bible that is on this level, nor can it fit any other person throughout time as we see direct interactions with Satan and God and Jesus throughout. It would not be possible for any "enemy of the enlightenment" to speak with God, as a real being or a construct to explain a process. This is why a pure metaphorical interpretation of the Bible will always fall through.
>>4904
I'm really going to have to get back to my study series so I can cover in full detail the nature of the antichrist as revealed in the Bible. It is an excellent study as it is revealed to be a supernational system, a leader that usurps three others within this system, and those that are riding along on the system, thinking they are in control.
Not entirely correct as you can find devil in the plural. However, this is fully interchangeable with demons if you swap the term in the text where the plural does appear, as it never attributes devils with the adversary role, but only those that harm through possession and supernatural attacks. In places where devil is in the singular, it can't be traded with demon because there is only one head of the demon order, which are fallen angels. The reason Satan is at the head is because he led the rebellion. Never can you find a demon other than Satan in the Bible that is on this level, nor can it fit any other person throughout time as we see direct interactions with Satan and God and Jesus throughout. It would not be possible for any "enemy of the enlightenment" to speak with God, as a real being or a construct to explain a process. This is why a pure metaphorical interpretation of the Bible will always fall through.
>>4904
I'm really going to have to get back to my study series so I can cover in full detail the nature of the antichrist as revealed in the Bible. It is an excellent study as it is revealed to be a supernational system, a leader that usurps three others within this system, and those that are riding along on the system, thinking they are in control.
>>4905
>Not entirely correct as you can find devil in the plural.
Citation needed.
>However, this is fully interchangeable with demons if you swap the term in the text
No. The Devil is a demon (aka daemon/daimon, aka angel), but not all demons are the Devil. It's only half interchangable. Demons are themselves not anything special or different from angels, aside from their defiance of god.
>devils with the adversary role
The word "Devil" itself translates to "the anversary". (although adittingly it can also man "the arguer", "the accuser" or "the blasphemer").
>In places where devil is in the singular, it can't be traded with demon because there is only one head of the demon order, which are fallen angels. The reason Satan is at the head is because he led the rebellion.
This is correct, but what other places are you referring to? I can't think f even a single instance where the term "devil" is plural.
>Not entirely correct as you can find devil in the plural.
Citation needed.
>However, this is fully interchangeable with demons if you swap the term in the text
No. The Devil is a demon (aka daemon/daimon, aka angel), but not all demons are the Devil. It's only half interchangable. Demons are themselves not anything special or different from angels, aside from their defiance of god.
>devils with the adversary role
The word "Devil" itself translates to "the anversary". (although adittingly it can also man "the arguer", "the accuser" or "the blasphemer").
>In places where devil is in the singular, it can't be traded with demon because there is only one head of the demon order, which are fallen angels. The reason Satan is at the head is because he led the rebellion.
This is correct, but what other places are you referring to? I can't think f even a single instance where the term "devil" is plural.
So to throw my hat into the ring, the contexts used for 'morning star' is two fold. First is the enlightened, they radiate, they guide (such as the North Star), they are a point of reference, to be the way, the truth and the light.
Second, Angelic depictions of classification of specific types of angels is they are like multicolored fire (rings and wheels and eyes ect). Standing to reason an angel could also be akin to a 'morning star'. I'm probably wrong, but a star seen during the morning is one of the brightest among those stars.
I think there is references that Jesus is the Brightest 'morning star'.
Satan is the deciever, previously sung the glory of God, through the arts (music, song, words, science, the whole thing), and was also 'morning star' kind of angel. Putting it into more abstract terms there are two very luminescent stars, one is Jesus the other Satan, following Satan star will lead you astray. While one route with Jesus star will be the way to his father God.
The metaphorical Jesus star is Brighter.
Second, Angelic depictions of classification of specific types of angels is they are like multicolored fire (rings and wheels and eyes ect). Standing to reason an angel could also be akin to a 'morning star'. I'm probably wrong, but a star seen during the morning is one of the brightest among those stars.
I think there is references that Jesus is the Brightest 'morning star'.
Satan is the deciever, previously sung the glory of God, through the arts (music, song, words, science, the whole thing), and was also 'morning star' kind of angel. Putting it into more abstract terms there are two very luminescent stars, one is Jesus the other Satan, following Satan star will lead you astray. While one route with Jesus star will be the way to his father God.
The metaphorical Jesus star is Brighter.
>>4906
You misunderstand. I am calling all devils as demons, as it is how some translations mention demons from time to time.
Luke 11:14-16
And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered. But some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils. And others, tempting him, sought of him a sign from heaven.
Here we see talk of a devil, which is the context for the later mention of the devil, the specific demon being cast out from among devils, or demons. This is typically also relegated to older translations and the newer ones don't include these because it confuses too many people that can't into context.
When you see the devil as referring to the boss, it is the top demon, Satan.
You misunderstand. I am calling all devils as demons, as it is how some translations mention demons from time to time.
Luke 11:14-16
And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered. But some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils. And others, tempting him, sought of him a sign from heaven.
Here we see talk of a devil, which is the context for the later mention of the devil, the specific demon being cast out from among devils, or demons. This is typically also relegated to older translations and the newer ones don't include these because it confuses too many people that can't into context.
When you see the devil as referring to the boss, it is the top demon, Satan.
>>4899
Do you believe that Chistianity has exclusive claim to divine inspiration?
>>4901
>but it's anothe step to apply all of those separate distinct cultures to Christianity and claim that it's the same religion
Thats not what Im doing at all, and you're right with this:
>he concept of goliness spirituality and worship is a very human one, but those other religions aren't relevant to the study of Christanity
... and thats the point.
If 'a' tradition is ezclusively authoritative, it will show; as of now I have a wealth of experience that suggests that NO tradition is exclusively authoritative. Hence, the solution is to experience as many traditions, perspectives, philosophies, etc. as possible, from which,... less developed ideas can be ascertained and omitted from the equation.
The religions are observably different, and yet the same in theme. The amount of overlap is staggering, doubly so when you factor for the inversion of religious roles in the stories!
But additionally, each tradition has its own nuggets of truth, exclusive from other traditions, which more accurately describes the Jesus I know than Christian traditions do. And, Im not so naive as to discount the effects of human failings on the conveyance of the stories, that these guys over here might have noticed something that those guys over there didnt notice.
And now for the big why.
Im of the mind that the avatar that is described in the bible with the 'given' name of Jesus Christ (not his actual name, not even close) is as much a cyclical part of the human experience and culture as the periodic cataclysms Im on about in History is a Lie.
To wit, Im of the mind that 'Jesus' shows up every few millenium or so to assist/correct/re-teach humanity a better way of doing/seeing/structuring things that is consistent with Natural Law and the framework that God intended versus the framework that it has devolved into.
'Jesus' is the adversary of humanity's cultural religious entropy which develops over time/influence to the benefit of the TRUE adversary (who is not a devil, he's something beyond a devil).
Having said, the 'name' Jesus is as accurate as Arjuna or Krishna, or Gautama Buddha, etc. ad nauseum.
Or Lucifer.
Everyone named was the adversary of the establishment who had languished in entropy.
>Just because two religions share similar ideologies (Christian asceticism vs Buddhist aceticism) doesn't mean they're the exact same thing, or even "manifestations" o the same things
Thats a reasonable position. My position - which I feel is reasonable - is that
<Just because two religions share similar ideologies (Christian asceticism vs Buddhist aceticism) doesn't mean they're NOT the exact same thing, or even "manifestations" of the same things
The problem is, Im operating from a wealth of experience I cant summarize and convey; I dont expect anyone to agree immediately or at all.
>At that point, you might as well start your own church.
The problem here is that the 'church' which I would be starting would be a reiteration of a church/tradition far older than the church or Christianity, and yet far more historically venerated, and far more cohesive from an inter-traditional standpoint.
Meaning, just like how physics in a variety of ways are cohesive in depicting that flat earth is absurd, there are a variety of traditions that neatly discount some of the more spurious elements of the Bible, often providing perspective as to how one/many got that bit so very wrong.
Like, Exodus for example
No, Im not saying Exodus didnt happen, I AM saying it wasnt in -2k BC when its written that it happened. Historical analysis - including religious - bears that out.
Do you believe that Chistianity has exclusive claim to divine inspiration?
>>4901
>but it's anothe step to apply all of those separate distinct cultures to Christianity and claim that it's the same religion
Thats not what Im doing at all, and you're right with this:
>he concept of goliness spirituality and worship is a very human one, but those other religions aren't relevant to the study of Christanity
... and thats the point.
If 'a' tradition is ezclusively authoritative, it will show; as of now I have a wealth of experience that suggests that NO tradition is exclusively authoritative. Hence, the solution is to experience as many traditions, perspectives, philosophies, etc. as possible, from which,... less developed ideas can be ascertained and omitted from the equation.
The religions are observably different, and yet the same in theme. The amount of overlap is staggering, doubly so when you factor for the inversion of religious roles in the stories!
But additionally, each tradition has its own nuggets of truth, exclusive from other traditions, which more accurately describes the Jesus I know than Christian traditions do. And, Im not so naive as to discount the effects of human failings on the conveyance of the stories, that these guys over here might have noticed something that those guys over there didnt notice.
And now for the big why.
Im of the mind that the avatar that is described in the bible with the 'given' name of Jesus Christ (not his actual name, not even close) is as much a cyclical part of the human experience and culture as the periodic cataclysms Im on about in History is a Lie.
To wit, Im of the mind that 'Jesus' shows up every few millenium or so to assist/correct/re-teach humanity a better way of doing/seeing/structuring things that is consistent with Natural Law and the framework that God intended versus the framework that it has devolved into.
'Jesus' is the adversary of humanity's cultural religious entropy which develops over time/influence to the benefit of the TRUE adversary (who is not a devil, he's something beyond a devil).
Having said, the 'name' Jesus is as accurate as Arjuna or Krishna, or Gautama Buddha, etc. ad nauseum.
Or Lucifer.
Everyone named was the adversary of the establishment who had languished in entropy.
>Just because two religions share similar ideologies (Christian asceticism vs Buddhist aceticism) doesn't mean they're the exact same thing, or even "manifestations" o the same things
Thats a reasonable position. My position - which I feel is reasonable - is that
<Just because two religions share similar ideologies (Christian asceticism vs Buddhist aceticism) doesn't mean they're NOT the exact same thing, or even "manifestations" of the same things
The problem is, Im operating from a wealth of experience I cant summarize and convey; I dont expect anyone to agree immediately or at all.
>At that point, you might as well start your own church.
The problem here is that the 'church' which I would be starting would be a reiteration of a church/tradition far older than the church or Christianity, and yet far more historically venerated, and far more cohesive from an inter-traditional standpoint.
Meaning, just like how physics in a variety of ways are cohesive in depicting that flat earth is absurd, there are a variety of traditions that neatly discount some of the more spurious elements of the Bible, often providing perspective as to how one/many got that bit so very wrong.
Like, Exodus for example
No, Im not saying Exodus didnt happen, I AM saying it wasnt in -2k BC when its written that it happened. Historical analysis - including religious - bears that out.
>>4902
>Christianity has similarities to a lot of religions, but the teachings of Christianity are distinctly separate from the rest.
Agreed, and many of those separations are quite significant and applicable in attempting to comprehend divinity and an individual's relationship to. However, it strikes me as quite foolish to conclude that ALL variance is gospel and evidence of Christianity's authority.
Ill take a moment to emphasize that 'Bible Study' should NOT be done from a position that 'everything I read is true and correct'; I assume the authors were PRECISELY as fallible as I am, and I have FAITH (one of the rare instances I will voluntary usr that term) that God will not lead me astray in my pursuit of truth.
Continuing
>Enlightenment is not the same as Salvation, though both concepts are highly subjective if you apply non-christian sources.
And yet, from a historical standpoint, they were viewed identically, to such degree that the words are interchangeable! What I mean is, thats not what contemporaneous writers have indicated by their writings.
Let me put it another way.
Prior to the murderous expansion of Christianity, enlightenment WAS synonymous with salvation, as damnation was construed with being functionally unable to progress in life through ignorance. You know the old phrase, 'insanity is foing the same thing over and ovrr, expecting a different result'?
Swap Insanity for Ignorance. Now swap Ignorance for Damnation.
>Chrstianity promises salvation from this existence andthe hellfire in its invitable collapse,
I disagree. Christianity offers A PERSPECTIVE of salvation (read: emancipation from ignorance) and the immovability of entropy. Much of the rest is embellishment from fanatics (my opinion).
>>4903
>Nowhere in the Christianity is the term "devil" or any derivative variation thereof, referred to as anything but singular.
One of many inaccuracies borne of being 'the new kid on the block'. Ive made several allusions to how more antiquated traditions had a more comprehensive understanding about facets of metaphysis than Christianity does.
>There are no "subraces" of infernal
You are entitled to that opinion, however I disagree with cause
>Christianity has similarities to a lot of religions, but the teachings of Christianity are distinctly separate from the rest.
Agreed, and many of those separations are quite significant and applicable in attempting to comprehend divinity and an individual's relationship to. However, it strikes me as quite foolish to conclude that ALL variance is gospel and evidence of Christianity's authority.
Ill take a moment to emphasize that 'Bible Study' should NOT be done from a position that 'everything I read is true and correct'; I assume the authors were PRECISELY as fallible as I am, and I have FAITH (one of the rare instances I will voluntary usr that term) that God will not lead me astray in my pursuit of truth.
Continuing
>Enlightenment is not the same as Salvation, though both concepts are highly subjective if you apply non-christian sources.
And yet, from a historical standpoint, they were viewed identically, to such degree that the words are interchangeable! What I mean is, thats not what contemporaneous writers have indicated by their writings.
Let me put it another way.
Prior to the murderous expansion of Christianity, enlightenment WAS synonymous with salvation, as damnation was construed with being functionally unable to progress in life through ignorance. You know the old phrase, 'insanity is foing the same thing over and ovrr, expecting a different result'?
Swap Insanity for Ignorance. Now swap Ignorance for Damnation.
>Chrstianity promises salvation from this existence andthe hellfire in its invitable collapse,
I disagree. Christianity offers A PERSPECTIVE of salvation (read: emancipation from ignorance) and the immovability of entropy. Much of the rest is embellishment from fanatics (my opinion).
>>4903
>Nowhere in the Christianity is the term "devil" or any derivative variation thereof, referred to as anything but singular.
One of many inaccuracies borne of being 'the new kid on the block'. Ive made several allusions to how more antiquated traditions had a more comprehensive understanding about facets of metaphysis than Christianity does.
>There are no "subraces" of infernal
You are entitled to that opinion, however I disagree with cause
By the by, before praying do you do preprayer praying?
Open, O Lord, my mouth to bless thy holy Name; cleanse also my heart from all vain, evil, and wandering thoughts; enlighten my understanding and kindle my affections; that I may worthily, attentively, and devoutly say this Office, and so be meet to be heard before the presence of thy divine Majesty. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
Open, O Lord, my mouth to bless thy holy Name; cleanse also my heart from all vain, evil, and wandering thoughts; enlighten my understanding and kindle my affections; that I may worthily, attentively, and devoutly say this Office, and so be meet to be heard before the presence of thy divine Majesty. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
>>4905
Quick question, and not intended as a cheeky quip. When you refer to Bible Study, what is the scope?
If you mean 'study/reading what it says in the Bible', thats totally agreeable.
But one would be hard pressed to find that definition in modern use. Experience shows to me at least that 'Bible Study' is more akin to being dictated to by word and by proxy, which defies the meaning of study.
Just like with Christian Scientists, if you begin from the assumption that the bible is correct, you're not studying, you're proselytizing.
Quick question, and not intended as a cheeky quip. When you refer to Bible Study, what is the scope?
If you mean 'study/reading what it says in the Bible', thats totally agreeable.
But one would be hard pressed to find that definition in modern use. Experience shows to me at least that 'Bible Study' is more akin to being dictated to by word and by proxy, which defies the meaning of study.
Just like with Christian Scientists, if you begin from the assumption that the bible is correct, you're not studying, you're proselytizing.
File (): FBF840A1E6048EE6C77F140E53F261C3-422321.png (412.4 KB, 707x683, 1640896868906 (1).png)
File (): 3E46EAB0D8E65C28336ACA2C8B710776-211862.png (206.9 KB, 402x512, 20180614-000 (1).png)
>>4909
>Do you believe that Chistianity has exclusive claim to divine inspiration?
What said was that applying non-Christian concepts to Christian study isn't Christianity; it's something else. This thread is about Christianity, so these concepts are only relevant to the discussion in context of Christianity.
>The amount of overlap is staggering
There is also a lot of contradiction, sometimes scathingly, and the contradiction is just as important.
If you only go by the lowest common denominator, most religions just have a vague concept of being nice to other people and putting fath in a higher power, but that's not all there is to religion.
Chances are a lot of the eligions you've looked at are even more similar in ways you didn't even consider, or just aren't comfortable with, because with logic that broad you can use vague correllations to justify claim from the necessity of self-immolation to human sacrifice.
> 'given' name of Jesus Christ (not his actual name, not even close)
His actual name is that of god, which is something no mortal could pronounce, let alone put in writing (despite whatever the Jehova's Witnesses say). The man named Jesus Christ is the incarnation of god on earth.
>But additionally, each tradition has its own nuggets of truth, exclusive from other traditions, which more accurately describes the Jesus I know than Christian traditions do.
Correllation doesn't necessarily imply truth. And how do you define "the Jesus you know"?
>Im operating from a wealth of experience I cant summarize and convey
If you're claiming you had a spiritual revelation or other anecdotal experience with god, I wouldn't consider that to be a relevant citation in a bible study thread, or at least not one that anyone is going to believe or benefit from.
>Like, Exodus for example
Okay, you got me there. There's very little evidence that Egyptians kept Jews as slaves, but evidence of their ancestors having been expelled from Egypt after an incident of them sacrificing rams next to the ram god temple, and it's quite likely at least partly revisionism written to keep the religion from disintegrating when a lot of them just wanted to assimilate into Egypt, and to frame banishment as escape, or at least in my speculation.
Still, that is the old testament.
>Do you believe that Chistianity has exclusive claim to divine inspiration?
What said was that applying non-Christian concepts to Christian study isn't Christianity; it's something else. This thread is about Christianity, so these concepts are only relevant to the discussion in context of Christianity.
>The amount of overlap is staggering
There is also a lot of contradiction, sometimes scathingly, and the contradiction is just as important.
If you only go by the lowest common denominator, most religions just have a vague concept of being nice to other people and putting fath in a higher power, but that's not all there is to religion.
Chances are a lot of the eligions you've looked at are even more similar in ways you didn't even consider, or just aren't comfortable with, because with logic that broad you can use vague correllations to justify claim from the necessity of self-immolation to human sacrifice.
> 'given' name of Jesus Christ (not his actual name, not even close)
His actual name is that of god, which is something no mortal could pronounce, let alone put in writing (despite whatever the Jehova's Witnesses say). The man named Jesus Christ is the incarnation of god on earth.
>But additionally, each tradition has its own nuggets of truth, exclusive from other traditions, which more accurately describes the Jesus I know than Christian traditions do.
Correllation doesn't necessarily imply truth. And how do you define "the Jesus you know"?
>Im operating from a wealth of experience I cant summarize and convey
If you're claiming you had a spiritual revelation or other anecdotal experience with god, I wouldn't consider that to be a relevant citation in a bible study thread, or at least not one that anyone is going to believe or benefit from.
>Like, Exodus for example
Okay, you got me there. There's very little evidence that Egyptians kept Jews as slaves, but evidence of their ancestors having been expelled from Egypt after an incident of them sacrificing rams next to the ram god temple, and it's quite likely at least partly revisionism written to keep the religion from disintegrating when a lot of them just wanted to assimilate into Egypt, and to frame banishment as escape, or at least in my speculation.
Still, that is the old testament.
>>4911
Open-ended, so Ill bite.
No. I start by washing myself thoroughly, then thoroughly washing my clothes, and then when my nasty ass and rags are clean, I wash/clean the area I will be operating in. I dont typically speak, but I focus on my intent - to eliminate everything that is immaterial to whatever spiritual act I intend to perform - on the given task (cleaning in preparation). Everything unrelated has to go.
Imo, Jesus knows my heart and intent, and it would be an exercise in vanity to atrificially/ceremoniously state so in words.
Open-ended, so Ill bite.
No. I start by washing myself thoroughly, then thoroughly washing my clothes, and then when my nasty ass and rags are clean, I wash/clean the area I will be operating in. I dont typically speak, but I focus on my intent - to eliminate everything that is immaterial to whatever spiritual act I intend to perform - on the given task (cleaning in preparation). Everything unrelated has to go.
Imo, Jesus knows my heart and intent, and it would be an exercise in vanity to atrificially/ceremoniously state so in words.
>>4909
If it wasn't written when it happened, then Jesus, your Lucifer, is pretty confused if everything wasn't wrote when it was supposed to be.
John 5:43-47
I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
He really trusted that Moses was real and wrote about Him for everyone present. So, if Exodus happened and wasn't wrote by the guy that was present for it, then we have a very unenlightened enlightener don't we?
Unless you wish to argue that the entire Bible is useless, even these words, which means you can't use it to argue the nature or existence of Jesus, because you can't even trust what is being said here. Therefore, you saying Jesus is Lucifer is just as valid as my own calling Lucifer as Satan, which cannot be proven through a text otherwise, it is just opinion by your own admission.
Which really limits what you can call out as well, because you don't have a refutation based in this text. Your claims are worthless to contribute to a Bible study thread if you don't start using the Bible to make any canonical inferences.
>>4912
The scope is just reading the Bible and breaking down what it means as literally as I can. If it is to be taken as analogy, the Bible makes good notions that it should, either by directly declaring it or by otherwise signaling such as the classic "Let them hear" line after a parable.
This will lead to moving through the Bible and connecting verses to each other that reinforce what is being said. You are correct I am coming from a place that assumes the Bible is correct, but typically one cannot explain something without full assurance that it is either correct or incorrect and be prepared to give reasons to those conclusions. Just as scientists can explain Newtonian physics because they believe in it and have studied it, they can break it down and give a study on it. Same with flat earthers that reject Newtonian physics and give their own studies on why they think it isn't correct.
Clearly you get different values of knowledge by listening to one group vs another, but this thread stated in the beginning to not be impartial or neutral, but a study of the Bible passages by breaking them down and explaining them.
If it wasn't written when it happened, then Jesus, your Lucifer, is pretty confused if everything wasn't wrote when it was supposed to be.
John 5:43-47
I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
He really trusted that Moses was real and wrote about Him for everyone present. So, if Exodus happened and wasn't wrote by the guy that was present for it, then we have a very unenlightened enlightener don't we?
Unless you wish to argue that the entire Bible is useless, even these words, which means you can't use it to argue the nature or existence of Jesus, because you can't even trust what is being said here. Therefore, you saying Jesus is Lucifer is just as valid as my own calling Lucifer as Satan, which cannot be proven through a text otherwise, it is just opinion by your own admission.
Which really limits what you can call out as well, because you don't have a refutation based in this text. Your claims are worthless to contribute to a Bible study thread if you don't start using the Bible to make any canonical inferences.
>>4912
The scope is just reading the Bible and breaking down what it means as literally as I can. If it is to be taken as analogy, the Bible makes good notions that it should, either by directly declaring it or by otherwise signaling such as the classic "Let them hear" line after a parable.
This will lead to moving through the Bible and connecting verses to each other that reinforce what is being said. You are correct I am coming from a place that assumes the Bible is correct, but typically one cannot explain something without full assurance that it is either correct or incorrect and be prepared to give reasons to those conclusions. Just as scientists can explain Newtonian physics because they believe in it and have studied it, they can break it down and give a study on it. Same with flat earthers that reject Newtonian physics and give their own studies on why they think it isn't correct.
Clearly you get different values of knowledge by listening to one group vs another, but this thread stated in the beginning to not be impartial or neutral, but a study of the Bible passages by breaking them down and explaining them.
>>4910
>However, it strikes me as quite foolish to conclude that ALL variance is gospel and evidence of Christianity's authority.
The varaiance is what makes it Christianity, and not some vague univeralist religion.
How do you go about picking and choosing what elements from other religions you consider to be relevant, if you take theological sources from other religions? Surely you don't practice the rituals of every religion at once, so how do you choose?
>Ill take a moment to emphasize that 'Bible Study' should NOT be done from a position that 'everything I read is true and correct'
Nobody said that. Bible study jus means studying the bible, not necessarily believing it.
>I have FAITH (one of the rare instances I will voluntary usr that term) that God will not lead me astray in my pursuit of truth.
Look at the history of humanity, and all of it's horrific fake religions an all of the people who've been led astray in the tragedy that is this plane. Are you certain that your own opinion is the only thing you want to base that on?
I'm not here to question your faith or the legitimacy of your beliefs (except maybe for their relevance to Christianity), but the way you put it sounds painfully arrogant.
>However, it strikes me as quite foolish to conclude that ALL variance is gospel and evidence of Christianity's authority.
The varaiance is what makes it Christianity, and not some vague univeralist religion.
How do you go about picking and choosing what elements from other religions you consider to be relevant, if you take theological sources from other religions? Surely you don't practice the rituals of every religion at once, so how do you choose?
>Ill take a moment to emphasize that 'Bible Study' should NOT be done from a position that 'everything I read is true and correct'
Nobody said that. Bible study jus means studying the bible, not necessarily believing it.
>I have FAITH (one of the rare instances I will voluntary usr that term) that God will not lead me astray in my pursuit of truth.
Look at the history of humanity, and all of it's horrific fake religions an all of the people who've been led astray in the tragedy that is this plane. Are you certain that your own opinion is the only thing you want to base that on?
I'm not here to question your faith or the legitimacy of your beliefs (except maybe for their relevance to Christianity), but the way you put it sounds painfully arrogant.
>>4910
>from a historical standpoint, they were viewed identically, to such degree that the words are interchangeable!
Citation needed.
Every culture has it's own concept of enlightenment, but that's not the same thing as being saved. Yo can be completely aware of the fire as you walk into it, with the same result. Christian concept of salvation is separate thereof, in that the only enlightenment it asks is that people be aware of and accept Jesus as their savior, not unravel the secrets ofthe universe. It doesn't discourage Christians from being enlighened, but it doesn't ask that much of them either.
>I disagree. Christianity offers A PERSPECTIVE of salvation (read: emancipation from ignorance) and the immovability of entropy.
The entire point of Christianity is to put faith in the messiah to save your soul from damnation (the default seting for humanity), and go to the eternal kngdom of heaven, to not be left behind on judgement day. That's what it says. To apply additional context is puttng words in other people's mouths without context.
>>4910
>Ive made several allusions to how more antiquated traditions had a more comprehensive understanding about facets of metaphysis than Christianity does.
Point to me where those traditions use the term "devil" in a pluralistic sence. Not demon, daemon, daimon, or daimonion, but devil.
>You are entitled to that opinion, however I disagree with cause
What cause?
>from a historical standpoint, they were viewed identically, to such degree that the words are interchangeable!
Citation needed.
Every culture has it's own concept of enlightenment, but that's not the same thing as being saved. Yo can be completely aware of the fire as you walk into it, with the same result. Christian concept of salvation is separate thereof, in that the only enlightenment it asks is that people be aware of and accept Jesus as their savior, not unravel the secrets ofthe universe. It doesn't discourage Christians from being enlighened, but it doesn't ask that much of them either.
>I disagree. Christianity offers A PERSPECTIVE of salvation (read: emancipation from ignorance) and the immovability of entropy.
The entire point of Christianity is to put faith in the messiah to save your soul from damnation (the default seting for humanity), and go to the eternal kngdom of heaven, to not be left behind on judgement day. That's what it says. To apply additional context is puttng words in other people's mouths without context.
>>4910
>Ive made several allusions to how more antiquated traditions had a more comprehensive understanding about facets of metaphysis than Christianity does.
Point to me where those traditions use the term "devil" in a pluralistic sence. Not demon, daemon, daimon, or daimonion, but devil.
>You are entitled to that opinion, however I disagree with cause
What cause?
>>4916
>Which really limits what you can call out as well, because you don't have a refutation based in this text. Your claims are worthless to contribute to a Bible study thread if you don't start using the Bible to make any canonical inferences.
Basically this.
In a bible study thread, you dicuss biblical canon, not headcannon based on other canons. All this out-of-canon stuff isn't relevant to peoplewho wanted to study the bible.
>Which really limits what you can call out as well, because you don't have a refutation based in this text. Your claims are worthless to contribute to a Bible study thread if you don't start using the Bible to make any canonical inferences.
Basically this.
In a bible study thread, you dicuss biblical canon, not headcannon based on other canons. All this out-of-canon stuff isn't relevant to peoplewho wanted to study the bible.
>>4917
>The variance is what makes it Christianity, and not some vague univeralist religion.
Which reminds me of
>The sacred prostitutes
Weird concept associated with the worship of Succubi, that was present in virtually all religions UNTIL Christianity arrived.
Not very well read, don't expect me to fire back
>The variance is what makes it Christianity, and not some vague univeralist religion.
Which reminds me of
>The sacred prostitutes
Weird concept associated with the worship of Succubi, that was present in virtually all religions UNTIL Christianity arrived.
Not very well read, don't expect me to fire back
>>4920
Well, a Christian would tell you that what other religions practiced before or the way they worshipped their idols isn't relevant to Christianity.
Well, a Christian would tell you that what other religions practiced before or the way they worshipped their idols isn't relevant to Christianity.
>>4896
what about the walls of jericho?
what historical inaccuracies? I am legitimately interested in researching it
>unwillingness to redress previous convictions, theories, and assumptions
I am, which is how I came to the conclusion that the old testament commandments, while not required for salvation, are things God prefers and wants us to do. So now I keep sabbath and the dietary laws, etc. What I am not willing to entertain, however, is disposing of the primacy of the Bible. And my spiritual experience backs up what I know of God's character from the Bible.
>>4897
Biblically, Jesus comes from the Father, and only does His Father's will and preaches His Father's words (John 5:19). In the garden of eden, God tangentially commanded an ignorance, that being that they were not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The serpent tempted them by the appeal of it making them wise. They ate, got that knowledge, and condemned themselves to death in the process. God requires obedience primarily, not personal inquisition.
I know that you said you consider that passage to be a figure that's not God, or something to that effect. This is what the Bible says, and my arguments come from that, so that might not be satisfying to you I suppose.
Another thing that comes to mind is God's repeated commands against mediums, spiritists, and magic. He makes it very clear that it's an abomination to even dabble in those things. Some might argue that it's a control mechanism to stifle the masses. I see it as protection. Either way, He is my King and thus I do not let my heart seek those things.
>no fan of taking what others have said as gospel (pun intended) and not critically analyzing
indeed, the Bereans come to mind (Acts 17:11). Also 2 Timothy 2:15, Hosea 4:6, and 2 Timothy 4:3 come to mind. I regularly examine my beliefs, within the constraints of what the Bible says. I do not go outside the revealed word of God when doing this.
what about the walls of jericho?
what historical inaccuracies? I am legitimately interested in researching it
>unwillingness to redress previous convictions, theories, and assumptions
I am, which is how I came to the conclusion that the old testament commandments, while not required for salvation, are things God prefers and wants us to do. So now I keep sabbath and the dietary laws, etc. What I am not willing to entertain, however, is disposing of the primacy of the Bible. And my spiritual experience backs up what I know of God's character from the Bible.
>>4897
Biblically, Jesus comes from the Father, and only does His Father's will and preaches His Father's words (John 5:19). In the garden of eden, God tangentially commanded an ignorance, that being that they were not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The serpent tempted them by the appeal of it making them wise. They ate, got that knowledge, and condemned themselves to death in the process. God requires obedience primarily, not personal inquisition.
I know that you said you consider that passage to be a figure that's not God, or something to that effect. This is what the Bible says, and my arguments come from that, so that might not be satisfying to you I suppose.
Another thing that comes to mind is God's repeated commands against mediums, spiritists, and magic. He makes it very clear that it's an abomination to even dabble in those things. Some might argue that it's a control mechanism to stifle the masses. I see it as protection. Either way, He is my King and thus I do not let my heart seek those things.
>no fan of taking what others have said as gospel (pun intended) and not critically analyzing
indeed, the Bereans come to mind (Acts 17:11). Also 2 Timothy 2:15, Hosea 4:6, and 2 Timothy 4:3 come to mind. I regularly examine my beliefs, within the constraints of what the Bible says. I do not go outside the revealed word of God when doing this.
>>4916
>pretty confused
Not really, its pretty obvious and easy to comprehend when people changed the dates for political/societal expediancy.
Like when the Catholic Church arbitrarily added 400-700 years to the dateline so specific popes could claim to be potentate at the turn of the century.
>He really trusted that Moses was real and wrote about Him for everyone present.
Incorrect. He is written as on who did trust that Moses was real, etc. Not the same thing. To illustrate my skepticism, an anecdote.
<Years ago John Cleese did a screening of The Life of Brian at UCSB. This was the night before Easter Sunday. During the QandA this one faggot got up and tried to make it religious. He asked "What would you say if Jesus was standing before you, having made the all the prophecies and promises, aboutnsacrificing himself on the cross to settle the debt of sin with the Father, as well as all the warnings and prohibitions. You're just standing there, and he's just smiling at you. What do you say?
>I would ask him if that is what he actually said, or if it what he was quoted as saying 2000+ years later
Yes, several popes decided to manipulate the date calendar
For clout.
>not be impartial or neutral
Which is the definition of bias
So to your lengthy point, no; this is not a Bible study thread, this is a Bible proselytizing thread. Thank you for clarifying.
>pretty confused
Not really, its pretty obvious and easy to comprehend when people changed the dates for political/societal expediancy.
Like when the Catholic Church arbitrarily added 400-700 years to the dateline so specific popes could claim to be potentate at the turn of the century.
>He really trusted that Moses was real and wrote about Him for everyone present.
Incorrect. He is written as on who did trust that Moses was real, etc. Not the same thing. To illustrate my skepticism, an anecdote.
<Years ago John Cleese did a screening of The Life of Brian at UCSB. This was the night before Easter Sunday. During the QandA this one faggot got up and tried to make it religious. He asked "What would you say if Jesus was standing before you, having made the all the prophecies and promises, aboutnsacrificing himself on the cross to settle the debt of sin with the Father, as well as all the warnings and prohibitions. You're just standing there, and he's just smiling at you. What do you say?
>I would ask him if that is what he actually said, or if it what he was quoted as saying 2000+ years later
Yes, several popes decided to manipulate the date calendar
For clout.
>not be impartial or neutral
Which is the definition of bias
So to your lengthy point, no; this is not a Bible study thread, this is a Bible proselytizing thread. Thank you for clarifying.
>>4909
>the Jesus I know
you cannot know Him if you reject His revealed word. the figure you seem to be pursuing is a strange god
>>4910
enlightenment as salvation is not compatible with the revealed Word of God.
>>4912
I assume the Bible is correct, or else I would not be a Christian. Your argument applies if you're formally studying the religion from the outside, which you are doing here. There are axioms of faith in each religion which are wholly incompatible with other religions.
>the Jesus I know
you cannot know Him if you reject His revealed word. the figure you seem to be pursuing is a strange god
>>4910
enlightenment as salvation is not compatible with the revealed Word of God.
>>4912
I assume the Bible is correct, or else I would not be a Christian. Your argument applies if you're formally studying the religion from the outside, which you are doing here. There are axioms of faith in each religion which are wholly incompatible with other religions.
File (): 73CB9897F4A6707FB4D071982C7B5FE7-20096.jpg (19.6 KB, 320x320, 1637302556882.jpg)
>>4923
>So to your lengthy point, no; this is not a Bible study thread, this is a Bible proselytizing thread. Thank you for clarifying.
Bro, this is a Bible study thread. It is necessary to gatekeep the discussion to keep it on topic of the Bible as accurate and applicable. Vague spirituality speculation should really go to a /vx/ thread or something
>So to your lengthy point, no; this is not a Bible study thread, this is a Bible proselytizing thread. Thank you for clarifying.
Bro, this is a Bible study thread. It is necessary to gatekeep the discussion to keep it on topic of the Bible as accurate and applicable. Vague spirituality speculation should really go to a /vx/ thread or something
>>4923
>Bible study thread
In a bible study thread, you talk about biblical canon.
Do you cite Filly Fantasia in FiM discussions just because they have some similarities?
>Bible study thread
In a bible study thread, you talk about biblical canon.
Do you cite Filly Fantasia in FiM discussions just because they have some similarities?
>>4917
Im gonna have to make my responses shorter, y'all are doing that 'dogpiling' thing you do
>it makes it Christianity
But it DOESNT make it inherently authoritative, outside assurances from the Bible that the Bible is authoritative
>>4918
The term Lucifer = the term Christos
>rituals
Practice? No. Analyze? Absolutely.
>point to me
Ill get right on it.
>what cause
Personal experience. Ill go into detail when y'all calm down
>>4921
And would you believe him? Look at the appropriated pagan-now-Christian holidays and grt back to me.
>>4922
I will have to go back and find my resources, bit the alleged time of the walls of Jericho coming down was about 800 years (iirc) after Jericho stopped being a major civilization hub, as described in the bible. Like, there WAS a time that Jericho was as described, but that stopped centuries before the Bible account. Great story, historically impossible.
>you consider that passage to be a figure that's not God, or something to that effect
And not just me, that was at the core of Gnostic philosophy (who were likewise genocided in the inquisition, for daring to perceive outside the dictates of the Catholic church).
Again I assert, Jesus/God does not command nor desire ignorance in/from His, and one should be very cautious of anything/one that does.
>Biblically, Jesus comes from the Father, and only does His Father's will and preaches His Father's words
And yet, all creation occurs from the masculine, WITHIN the feminine. Where's she at in all this?
>the serpent tempted
Thats one interpretation, but as I have posited, it seems more consistent with the forms of nature that they were prevented from eating the fruit by a jealous and domineering tyrant who did NOT want humans to be anything more than docile sychophants who always did what they were told without question.
>commands against mediums, spiritists, and magic
Golly, we cant have humans learning metaphysical and natural Law, then they might be less dependent.
Seriously, its the same script the Commies use, just more elegant.
Im gonna have to make my responses shorter, y'all are doing that 'dogpiling' thing you do
>it makes it Christianity
But it DOESNT make it inherently authoritative, outside assurances from the Bible that the Bible is authoritative
>>4918
The term Lucifer = the term Christos
>rituals
Practice? No. Analyze? Absolutely.
>point to me
Ill get right on it.
>what cause
Personal experience. Ill go into detail when y'all calm down
>>4921
And would you believe him? Look at the appropriated pagan-now-Christian holidays and grt back to me.
>>4922
I will have to go back and find my resources, bit the alleged time of the walls of Jericho coming down was about 800 years (iirc) after Jericho stopped being a major civilization hub, as described in the bible. Like, there WAS a time that Jericho was as described, but that stopped centuries before the Bible account. Great story, historically impossible.
>you consider that passage to be a figure that's not God, or something to that effect
And not just me, that was at the core of Gnostic philosophy (who were likewise genocided in the inquisition, for daring to perceive outside the dictates of the Catholic church).
Again I assert, Jesus/God does not command nor desire ignorance in/from His, and one should be very cautious of anything/one that does.
>Biblically, Jesus comes from the Father, and only does His Father's will and preaches His Father's words
And yet, all creation occurs from the masculine, WITHIN the feminine. Where's she at in all this?
>the serpent tempted
Thats one interpretation, but as I have posited, it seems more consistent with the forms of nature that they were prevented from eating the fruit by a jealous and domineering tyrant who did NOT want humans to be anything more than docile sychophants who always did what they were told without question.
>commands against mediums, spiritists, and magic
Golly, we cant have humans learning metaphysical and natural Law, then they might be less dependent.
Seriously, its the same script the Commies use, just more elegant.
>>4924
His revealed word [i]according to whom?
>revealed word according to God
Are you sure it wasnt a bunch of dudes who wrote what they thought? Kind of like the Exodus example I mentioned? Im not impugning their motives (at the moment), Im calling a spade a spade; the Bible is FULL of inaccuracies, are THEY the inspired word of God?
>I assume the Bible is correct
Bully for you (arguing from a preconception is arguing in bad faith, byw), a rationalist is not afforded such intellectual laziness.
>the axioms dont align
Oh but they do, if you apply a different interpretation to the texts.
His revealed word [i]according to whom?
>revealed word according to God
Are you sure it wasnt a bunch of dudes who wrote what they thought? Kind of like the Exodus example I mentioned? Im not impugning their motives (at the moment), Im calling a spade a spade; the Bible is FULL of inaccuracies, are THEY the inspired word of God?
>I assume the Bible is correct
Bully for you (arguing from a preconception is arguing in bad faith, byw), a rationalist is not afforded such intellectual laziness.
>the axioms dont align
Oh but they do, if you apply a different interpretation to the texts.
Before I set out to provide all the materials requested, let me leave you with a Zen Koan.
>>4924
>else I would not be a Christian
By who's definition of Christian? I revert to the fact that the historical perception of the concept of Salvation/Enlightenment was about intellectual pursuit and liberation. This is a tradition that at best guess is over 16k years old.
Simply, 'Christ' meant one who was enlightened (or anointed by knowledge) right up until a huge murder-frenzy by the church, after which everyone who was LEFT proclaimed it to be about pure salvation, as dictated by the same church, with still dripping blood on their hands and spears.
>>4924
>else I would not be a Christian
By who's definition of Christian? I revert to the fact that the historical perception of the concept of Salvation/Enlightenment was about intellectual pursuit and liberation. This is a tradition that at best guess is over 16k years old.
Simply, 'Christ' meant one who was enlightened (or anointed by knowledge) right up until a huge murder-frenzy by the church, after which everyone who was LEFT proclaimed it to be about pure salvation, as dictated by the same church, with still dripping blood on their hands and spears.
>>4927
>But it DOESNT make it inherently authoritative
It does in a thread about bible study.
>The term Lucifer = the term Christos
Citation needed.
>Practice? No. Analyze? Absolutely.
To most of the religions you'd cite, the practice of the rituals is necessary for whatever their spiritual goals are. Religious practice isn't a joke.
>Personal experience.
That's not a source, or at least not relevant to bible study. You may as well tell me you met Jesus personally.
>appropriated pagan-now-Christian holidays
Continuing pagan celebrations doesn't necessarily mean everything in those holidays is sacremental, let alone relevant to biblical debate.
And yes, I would believe him. I wouldn't take the opnion of non-christians on what Christianity is supposed to be.
>Jesus/God does not command nor desire ignorance in/from His
The bible doesn't say that. It only says that Adam and Eve gained knowledge that make them incapable of being innocent, and as the inheritors of that awareness humans are inherently sinful. Nowhere does it forbid humans from pursuing additional knowledge, only that that first taste Adam and Eve had screwed them to lives of human strife.
>it seems more consistent with the forms of nature that they were prevented from eating the fruit by a jealous and domineering tyrant who did NOT want humans to be anything more than docile sychophants who always did what they were told without question.
The concept of original sin is central to christianity, as it's the reason human beings require salvation; the emphasis on it is also part of also what distinguishes Christianity from Judaism and Islam.
The sin is the defiance of god, not enlightement. The point of the fruit is that once Adam and Eve gained knowledge of good and evil, they could no longer ever be innocent like their fellow beasts of Eden. The fruit is part of what makes humans uniquely enlightened among creatures in this world, but also dooms humans to damnation unless they find salvation in god, because as humans have the capacity to understand good and evil they are all innately sinful.
>that was at the core of Gnostic philosophy
Gnosticism is not Christianity.
>WITHIN the feminine.
Citation needed.
>then they might be less dependent
Dependent on what? Christian faith doesn't kick in until the afterlife, and at that point all that matters is if you were a good Christian.
>learning metaphysical and natural Law
Christianity (or, every denomination I can think of) forbids practicing magic, not learning it.
>>4929
>'Christ'
For the purpose of biblical study, the only Christ anyone else in the thread has been referring to is the guy who was crucified two millenia ago and rose from the dead because he was the son of god: that Christ.
>But it DOESNT make it inherently authoritative
It does in a thread about bible study.
>The term Lucifer = the term Christos
Citation needed.
>Practice? No. Analyze? Absolutely.
To most of the religions you'd cite, the practice of the rituals is necessary for whatever their spiritual goals are. Religious practice isn't a joke.
>Personal experience.
That's not a source, or at least not relevant to bible study. You may as well tell me you met Jesus personally.
>appropriated pagan-now-Christian holidays
Continuing pagan celebrations doesn't necessarily mean everything in those holidays is sacremental, let alone relevant to biblical debate.
And yes, I would believe him. I wouldn't take the opnion of non-christians on what Christianity is supposed to be.
>Jesus/God does not command nor desire ignorance in/from His
The bible doesn't say that. It only says that Adam and Eve gained knowledge that make them incapable of being innocent, and as the inheritors of that awareness humans are inherently sinful. Nowhere does it forbid humans from pursuing additional knowledge, only that that first taste Adam and Eve had screwed them to lives of human strife.
>it seems more consistent with the forms of nature that they were prevented from eating the fruit by a jealous and domineering tyrant who did NOT want humans to be anything more than docile sychophants who always did what they were told without question.
The concept of original sin is central to christianity, as it's the reason human beings require salvation; the emphasis on it is also part of also what distinguishes Christianity from Judaism and Islam.
The sin is the defiance of god, not enlightement. The point of the fruit is that once Adam and Eve gained knowledge of good and evil, they could no longer ever be innocent like their fellow beasts of Eden. The fruit is part of what makes humans uniquely enlightened among creatures in this world, but also dooms humans to damnation unless they find salvation in god, because as humans have the capacity to understand good and evil they are all innately sinful.
>that was at the core of Gnostic philosophy
Gnosticism is not Christianity.
>WITHIN the feminine.
Citation needed.
>then they might be less dependent
Dependent on what? Christian faith doesn't kick in until the afterlife, and at that point all that matters is if you were a good Christian.
>learning metaphysical and natural Law
Christianity (or, every denomination I can think of) forbids practicing magic, not learning it.
>>4929
>'Christ'
For the purpose of biblical study, the only Christ anyone else in the thread has been referring to is the guy who was crucified two millenia ago and rose from the dead because he was the son of god: that Christ.
>>4927
>y'all are doing that 'dogpiling' thing you do
You use this buzzword when you make outlandish, disruptive, uncited claims claims about things in ways that barely relate to the subject of the thread (the bible), and other posters respond with refutations accordingly.
Go to the same thing on 4chan /cg/, or 8kun /christian/ in a conversation that is explicitly about bible study, and see what kind of response you get. Maybe it's your behavior that's worth reconsidering.
>y'all are doing that 'dogpiling' thing you do
You use this buzzword when you make outlandish, disruptive, uncited claims claims about things in ways that barely relate to the subject of the thread (the bible), and other posters respond with refutations accordingly.
Go to the same thing on 4chan /cg/, or 8kun /christian/ in a conversation that is explicitly about bible study, and see what kind of response you get. Maybe it's your behavior that's worth reconsidering.
>>4931
>To most of the religions you'd cite, the practice of the rituals is necessary for whatever their spiritual goals ar
To the uninitiated thats true, however metaphysics is something of a science, wherein one can grasp the intent/practice/meaning through analysis, once the comprehension of form is established.
>personal experience is not a source
I dony know if you realize this, but you just refuted the entire Bible, which is a collection of proclaimations based on personal experience.
>a Christian would tell you that what other religions practiced before or the way they worshipped their idols isn't relevant to Christianity
>I wouldn't take the opnion of non-christians on what Christianity is supposed to be
But you would take and appropriate their holidays? And, you claim theres no inconsistency in the influence previous traditions have on the worship of christian doctrine?
>original sin
Splendid! Yet another recent (less than 100 y/o) addition to Christian orthodoxy! Seriously, research the history of Original Sin as a religious concept, its amongst the newest of all (but it sure does coerce obedience!).
>Gnosticism is not Christianity
Oh? Are you trying to retcon the fact that they were devout priests and friars operating under the auspices of the church? That their very faith and aesceticism is what led them to the conclusions which got them axed by their parent company? Awfully convenient,....
>citation needed
Show me a baby not born of a female. Ill wait.
>inb4 seahorses
The baby is born before being deposited in the male pouch, thats not the same thing
>Christian faith doesn't kick in until the afterlife
Oh, so how we conduct ourselves in life is irrelevant? How VERY convenient. Here, I thought we were to be conscientious and righteous to eachother. Apparently it just matters which political party box we ticked? Thats EXCEEDINGLY anti-Christ imo.
>Christianity (or, every denomination I can think of) forbids practicing magic, not learning it.
As I said, promoting willful ignorance; of the anti-Christ
>For the purpose of biblical study, the only Christ anyone else in the thread has been referring to is the guy who was crucified two millenia ago and rose from the dead because he was the son of god: that Christ.
Reads as
<For the purpose of this thread, we're going to throw out all references to Christos, Enlightenment, and anything predating and not DIRECTLY approved by the Bible (per recent sources, nevermind if they conflict with older ones) because it would be inconvenient to explain the inconsistencies of social perception surrounding the concept, as well as the observable changes in definition and perception due not least of which to bloody massacre by the same church that is the source of those inconsistencies.
Wow. Just, wow.
>To most of the religions you'd cite, the practice of the rituals is necessary for whatever their spiritual goals ar
To the uninitiated thats true, however metaphysics is something of a science, wherein one can grasp the intent/practice/meaning through analysis, once the comprehension of form is established.
>personal experience is not a source
I dony know if you realize this, but you just refuted the entire Bible, which is a collection of proclaimations based on personal experience.
>a Christian would tell you that what other religions practiced before or the way they worshipped their idols isn't relevant to Christianity
>I wouldn't take the opnion of non-christians on what Christianity is supposed to be
But you would take and appropriate their holidays? And, you claim theres no inconsistency in the influence previous traditions have on the worship of christian doctrine?
>original sin
Splendid! Yet another recent (less than 100 y/o) addition to Christian orthodoxy! Seriously, research the history of Original Sin as a religious concept, its amongst the newest of all (but it sure does coerce obedience!).
>Gnosticism is not Christianity
Oh? Are you trying to retcon the fact that they were devout priests and friars operating under the auspices of the church? That their very faith and aesceticism is what led them to the conclusions which got them axed by their parent company? Awfully convenient,....
>citation needed
Show me a baby not born of a female. Ill wait.
>inb4 seahorses
The baby is born before being deposited in the male pouch, thats not the same thing
>Christian faith doesn't kick in until the afterlife
Oh, so how we conduct ourselves in life is irrelevant? How VERY convenient. Here, I thought we were to be conscientious and righteous to eachother. Apparently it just matters which political party box we ticked? Thats EXCEEDINGLY anti-Christ imo.
>Christianity (or, every denomination I can think of) forbids practicing magic, not learning it.
As I said, promoting willful ignorance; of the anti-Christ
>For the purpose of biblical study, the only Christ anyone else in the thread has been referring to is the guy who was crucified two millenia ago and rose from the dead because he was the son of god: that Christ.
Reads as
<For the purpose of this thread, we're going to throw out all references to Christos, Enlightenment, and anything predating and not DIRECTLY approved by the Bible (per recent sources, nevermind if they conflict with older ones) because it would be inconvenient to explain the inconsistencies of social perception surrounding the concept, as well as the observable changes in definition and perception due not least of which to bloody massacre by the same church that is the source of those inconsistencies.
Wow. Just, wow.
>>4932
No, I use that word when I take the time to write lengthy and thoughtful responses to posts, only to find after posting that I have twice as many demands for response than I started with, each displaying an increasing irreverence and effort, because it has become less about having a thorough discussion and more about vying for gotcha points
No, I use that word when I take the time to write lengthy and thoughtful responses to posts, only to find after posting that I have twice as many demands for response than I started with, each displaying an increasing irreverence and effort, because it has become less about having a thorough discussion and more about vying for gotcha points
>>4933
>the entire Bible
The thread is about studying the bible, if you didn't realize. You can say the bible is based on personal experience, but your own personal experience is not a relevant source to the discussion.
>But you would take and appropriate their holidays?
Any excuse for a party is a good one. No reason to give up celebrations. The obsolete traditions are no-longer sacraments.
>(less than 100 y/o)
Citation needed.
>Are you trying to retcon the fact that they were devout priests and friars operating under the auspices of the church?
Plenty of retards have done that and made their own minicults.
>Show me a baby not born of a female. Ill wait.
Babies are born from famales. The rest of creation was created by god, not "born from" a female.
>how we conduct ourselves in life is irrelevant?
How you conduct yourself in life is relevant to how you will be judged in death. This existence is transitory.
>Apparently it just matters which political party box we ticked?
Reductionist nonsense.
>willful ignorance
That's the opposite of what I just said. You can be aware of something without practicing it.
>>4934
>It's everyone else's fault!
I'm astounded by your lack of self awareness.
>the entire Bible
The thread is about studying the bible, if you didn't realize. You can say the bible is based on personal experience, but your own personal experience is not a relevant source to the discussion.
>But you would take and appropriate their holidays?
Any excuse for a party is a good one. No reason to give up celebrations. The obsolete traditions are no-longer sacraments.
>(less than 100 y/o)
Citation needed.
>Are you trying to retcon the fact that they were devout priests and friars operating under the auspices of the church?
Plenty of retards have done that and made their own minicults.
>Show me a baby not born of a female. Ill wait.
Babies are born from famales. The rest of creation was created by god, not "born from" a female.
>how we conduct ourselves in life is irrelevant?
How you conduct yourself in life is relevant to how you will be judged in death. This existence is transitory.
>Apparently it just matters which political party box we ticked?
Reductionist nonsense.
>willful ignorance
That's the opposite of what I just said. You can be aware of something without practicing it.
>>4934
>It's everyone else's fault!
I'm astounded by your lack of self awareness.
>>4933
>references to Christos, Enlightenment, and anything predating and not DIRECTLY approved by the Bible (per recent sources, nevermind if they conflict with older ones) because it would be inconvenient to explain the inconsistencies of social perception surrounding the concept, as well as the observable changes in definition and perception due not least of which to bloody massacre by the same church that is the source of those inconsistencies.
That could be its own thread, several even.
>references to Christos, Enlightenment, and anything predating and not DIRECTLY approved by the Bible (per recent sources, nevermind if they conflict with older ones) because it would be inconvenient to explain the inconsistencies of social perception surrounding the concept, as well as the observable changes in definition and perception due not least of which to bloody massacre by the same church that is the source of those inconsistencies.
That could be its own thread, several even.
Ugh, this thread is already basically derailed. Idk why I even tried.
>>4937
I'm sorry you feel that way anon, but I'm not going to give up hope on this thread. I am a bit tied up with work for a little bit, but I can set things back on track with more Bible study in the future.
I'm sorry you feel that way anon, but I'm not going to give up hope on this thread. I am a bit tied up with work for a little bit, but I can set things back on track with more Bible study in the future.
>>4938
It's not that gnosticism and luciferiansm aren't worth their own conversations in other threads, but that tangent isn't really helpful for those of us who were trying to focus on the bible and its canon.
It's not that gnosticism and luciferiansm aren't worth their own conversations in other threads, but that tangent isn't really helpful for those of us who were trying to focus on the bible and its canon.
>>4939
Agreed. I will attempt to steer away from those topics and focus on the content within the Bible.
Agreed. I will attempt to steer away from those topics and focus on the content within the Bible.
[Reply] [Last 50 Posts] [Last 100 Posts] [Last 200 Posts]
You are viewing older replies. Click [View All] or [Last n Posts] to vew latest posts.
Clicking update will load all posts posted after last post on this page.
Post pagination: [Prev] [1-50] [51-100] [101-150] [151-200] [201-250] [251-300] [301-350] [351-400] [401-450] [451-500] [501-550] [551-568] [Next] [Live (last 50 replies)]
568 replies | 215 files | 129 UUIDs | Page 1