I don't understand the Bible

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

When you say John are you talking about the Baptist, or the unknown Johaninne community that wrote the book attributed to John.

And what impact do you think the real Galilean Peter had?

Yes, I mean "John," the "Beloved Disciple".

Peter, I feel, is the true traitor. I feel the entire Judas story is something he spread to detract from his own sins regarding being traitorous towards Jesus. Hardly anyone portrays him in a good light. He thinks highly of himself and fails at all his attempts to pretend to be as cool as his teacher. I wonder if, when Jesus said "get behind me, Satan" when Peter was being a dick, this was the key to a code where anytime Jesus deals with Satan, he's actually speaking to Peter. We are to stand up for our beliefs and our "rock" sets an example by escaping jail each and every time, not even counting how he denied Jesus just to not get in trouble. He is involved with people dying, whether selling a house or doing miracles, er, "sorcery".

He, along with Paul, encouraged a slavishness to authority that I don't think was original to the ministry, with them as the authorities (each excluding the other, of course). Truth should always be the "leader" of the movement, not a person or persons.

See? You really don't understand the scriptures after all. All this brouhaha like you 'get it' and you missed the most important point. The Bible is like one of those puzzles where you have to apply the filter of belief to really understand it. Put on those decoder glasses and the message becomes apparent. Try to bull your way through and you'll keep arguing with the sign post and take the wrong way home.

The bible is indeed a puzzle, but now I think the Mahabharata (sp) is written much better. It seems to have much less of the "do as I say, not as I do" stuff in it.

John 13:35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. (NIV)

Given how Christianity treated others, Jesus had no disciples?

I Corinthians 13 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. (NIV)

Paul should never be allowed to lecture anyone about treating others with compassion.

What knowledge does he tell people?

He told me that whatever He decided, nature would confirm.

To assume what you stated is actually true, that means he picks "special" children of his to impart knowledge, and some he just lets suffer?

I believe that if God willfully denies people knowledge, He must be responsible for the consequences of the ignorance.

 

[outhouse]

I respect your theological understanding but I follow the historical one closely as possible. As far as theist go your one of the more educated people we see here. I do value your contributions.

Yes, I mean "John," the "Beloved Disciple".

We don't believe he had any part of writing this Hellenistic book. We do believe it was a Johaninne community of Hellenistis proselytes and gentiles.

Peter, I feel, is the true traitor

Aspects of him were written in that way.

What we think happened was that his real followers [inner circle] fled Jerusalem during his arrest, afraid of the same fate as Jesus. There were probably traditions that had to be addressed many decades after the events by people who were not there or witnessed anything.

I feel the entire Judas story

We [academia] feels these are not exactly historical, there are 3 different main versions of how he died. and different theology of what happened.

Theological only speaking. One account makes him a traitor, one makes him and jesus working together, as both knew what was going to happen.

He, along with Paul, encouraged a slavishness to authority that I don't think was original to the ministry

None of the movement in the NT was Galilean based theology or Judaism Jesus practiced. None of the NT books have anything to do with Galilean Aramaic Judaism.


EVERY aspect has to do in context with the Hellenistic divorce of cultural Judaism, so they perverted Judaism to meet their personal needs by way of the perceived sacrifice of jesus at Passover.

Peter had nothing to do with what would become Christianity.

I have never placed any faith in the Jerusalem house as being part of the real followers anyway. But that is my own personal opinion. Pauls community were great rhetorician's. I do believe there may have been people there named Thomas and Peter who may have once heard something somewhere. But we know it was common to use names of perceived important people and attribute important things to then. That how all writers of that time period were trained to do.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Given how Christianity treated others, Jesus had no disciples?

There are any number of disciples who practice only love. However, if you're looking for perfect people, there are none here.

 

[TheSupremeAtheist]

No it doesn't make any sense. That's why you need faith (Without Reason)

 

[Scuba Pete]

No it doesn't make any sense. That's why you need faith (Without Reason)

You need almost as much faith then, to be an atheist!

There is justified and non-justified faith. It takes as much faith to believe in any God as it does to disbelieve in any God. The only person who can claim they don't use faith is an agnostic. Few atheists are honest enough to admit this, but there is no superiority in belief or disbelief.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I wish I could just close any thread that was moving towards an asymptotic disagreement about belief vs nonbelief in God etc.

 

[TheSupremeAtheist]

You need almost as much faith then, to be an atheist!

There is justified and non-justified faith. It takes as much faith to believe in any God as it does to disbelieve in any God. The only person who can claim they don't use faith is an agnostic. Few atheists are honest enough to admit this, but there is no superiority in belief or disbelief.

No you got it completely wrong. Why would you need faith to be an atheist? atheism isn't based on claims without evidence. It's the rejection of claims without proof or evidence.

 

[outhouse]

It takes as much faith to believe in any God as it does to disbelieve in any God.

Not true.

We know only man defined your concept. You believe in a god that was created by a king who was forced to compile different religious traditions to keep his Babylonian captors happy.

Babylonians wanted a more unified belief to set the people free.

Anyway, its not even up for debate it is so well accepted by those who know the anthropology, its common knowledge the abrahamic god is really two gods El and Yahweh.

That's not faith.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah

The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved and other ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on a cult of ancestors and worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[71][72] With the emergence of the monarchy at the beginning of Iron Age II the kings promoted their family god, Yahweh, as the god of the kingdom, but beyond the royal court, religion continued to be both polytheistic and family-centered.[73] The major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god, and perhaps Shamash (the sun) in the early period.[74] At an early stage El and Yahweh became fused and Asherah did not continue as a separate state cult

 

[outhouse]

It's the rejection of claims without proof or evidence.

It is not even that.

It is just a rejection of theism. It does not even have to become a conscious rejection either. One who has never heard of mythology or religion can be an atheist.

 

[Muffled]

Can you describe this a little more in detail. I'm not following the circular part, what do you mean? That time is in a cycle? how long?

I believe eternally. The end is also the beginning in a circle. Alpha and Omega.

Well factually 2038 is not here. And 1992 is long past forgotten.

I believe you speak of facts as though some of them explain everything but that is not the case. 2038 can't be here because this is 2015. Whatever one remembers about 1992 it still exists in 1992.

I think maybe you think your memory of the past in your conscious mind can think about the past so it is here now.

I believe your thinking is incorrect.

I think you can imagine the future despite being factually wrong.

Can you say there won't be a 2016? Then why would you say there wouldn't be a 2038. I suppose it would be possible for Jesus to return and for no-one to bother counting years because they are meaningless to someone living forever.

You would think there would be credible evidence of this.

I believe there is.

 

[outhouse]

I believe there is.

I believe you need to learn how to use the quote function properly

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Is Christianity supposed to make sense?
If so, why are the concepts the Bible presents so foreign? For instance, I was reading in the Gospel of John and the first verse I come to makes a claim that makes zero sense. (John 1:1) How can something or someone never be created yet simply exist?
I read on down to John 1:14. How does the Word become flesh? How does the Holy Spirit come upon the virgin Mary so that she conceives?
I don't like being stupid or kept in the dark about the how of things. Christianity may not be my religion if its God keeps his people in the dark about everything. Don't tell me that I don't have enough faith. If 2 Timothy 3:7 is correct why is it like I keep reading the Bible and nothing it says even resonates. Why am I not learning anything new? I'm starting to hate everything about Christianity.

Please keep in mind that the KJV Bible is Not the original language of Scripture.
John 1:1 was originally written in Greek, and the same Greek grammar rule applies at Acts of the Apostles 28:6 B.
The letter ' a ' is omitted at John, but the letter ' a ' is inserted at Acts even thought the same Greek grammar rules applies to both.
John was clear about Jesus at Revelation 1:5; Revelation 3:14 B that Jesus is the beginning of the creation by God.
John also wrote at John 1:18 that No one has seen God at any time. See also 1 John 4:12 and Exodus 33:20. People saw Jesus and lived.
The heavenly Jesus was the pre-human Son of God, and God sent His heavenly Son to earth to be born in the flesh.
When God sends for His spirit things are created - Psalms 104:30 - so God used his Power and Strength to create - Jeremiah 32:17; Isaiah 42:5 - both the spirit world and the physical.
John concludes what he believes about Jesus at John 20:31 that Jesus is the Son of God.
Jesus still thinks he has a God over him - Revelation 3:12

 

[Muffled]

I believe you need to learn how to use the quote function properly

I believe some people like it that way but I will be happy to accommodate you.

 

[Muffled]

No you got it completely wrong. Why would you need faith to be an atheist? atheism isn't based on claims without evidence. It's the rejection of claims without proof or evidence.

I don't believe so. I think atheists reject the evidence because they do not wish to believe the evidence.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I believe you need to learn how to use the quote function properly

Ha ha ha. Getting a little annoyed? I feel for you though. I'm recording:

 

[outhouse]

Getting a little annoyed?

Not really, but he has been here long enough to know you cannot quote his comments when he does not use the function properly.

 

[outhouse]

I believe some people like it that way but I will be happy to accommodate you.

Thank you.

No one likes it, because they cannot quote you properly. By doing it your way, you are actually changing my quotes and making me unable to respond with more clarity

 

[Muffled]

Thank you.

No one likes it, because they cannot quote you properly. By doing it your way, you are actually changing my quotes and making me unable to respond with more clarity

When I encounter it I use cut and paste. I find it annoying sometimes when the person's response doesn't have my quotes and I have to go back and figure out what a person is responding to.