Ridiculous statement of Jesus?

[JoStories]

OK so no one believes the Bible. Then we are all free to believe anything we want. But if you believe the Bible then John 1:12 says "as many as received Him, to them gave He the power to become the sons of God." nothing there about everyone automatically being a child of God. It says if you do not receive Him you do not have the power to become His child. Believe it or not is up to you but that is what it says. I'm sure people will find a way to say it does not mean what it says. But it clearly says everyone is not a child of God. Only those who receive Him.

You are making a host of assumptions about God here. I firmly believe in God but clearly not from the vantage point of your religion. God is no more male than I am. I need not become a 'child' either. I need to try to understand God and live my life to try to reach enlightenment. You are free to believe as you wish and I respect that but please speak for yourself when trying to say what God would want. No one can know that.

 

[Desert Snake]

Bull crap. The scripture has nothing to do with academia or scholarship. It has to do with attitude. By the very virtue of your having misunderstood the text you use to support your statement, you show that you do not, in fact, "know." And it's that hubris of saying you know -- when you don't -- that is being ridiculed. Such ridicule of unsubstantiated hubris is right.

Academia only has one small place in religious knowledge. Academia that does not have understanding of religious concepts, yet babbles about them /which is much/, is actually useless, and a hindrance to the religion.

 

[JoStories]

Completely agree. This movement was never about control.


Because later people capitalized and abused religious power, well it has nothing to do with the text and how it originated.

I disagree. As I said to Sojourner, the parts of the text attributed to Paul are particularly telling in how it tries to control. What other reason do you see for those things that Paul allegedly wrote? I agree it may not have been originally written to control but the fact remains that today, it clearly is about control.

 

[JoStories]

Academia only has one small place in religious knowledge. Academia that does not have understanding of religious concepts, yet babbles about them /which is much/, is actually useless, and a hindrance to the religion.

That is patently false. Or do you dismiss the theologians that fall into the Christian apologist group as well as any with the temerity to actually study religions and spirituality at a deeper and more complex understanding of the area? I am a theologian that actually does believe in God. That, however, does not diminish that I study all faiths from multiple perspectives, including the import of history, culture, language, etc. What is at face value is a acceptance of a certain dogma without the slightest understanding of how that faith came to be.

 

[Thief]

I would think he did.


But you don't understand the first thing about the true context of his real life.


You don't even know his first real name

let's see.....some angel said it might be Emmanuel...?

and it was noted in one of the gospels.....He did not baptize.
His disciples did.

 

[Thief]

I love that Outhouse. Mind if I borrow it? Its truly profound and right on point.

really?
and what pray tell is deeper than God?

See Genesis....and darkness was upon the face of the deep....

God went First.

Someone had to be First.

 

[Etritonakin]

No book written by men is free of bias. If it were truly what God wrote, then the entire world would agree with its content, yet we know that is not true as there are many denominations and many faiths. Is it not possible that all might contain a kernel of that eternal truth that must be gleaned through study and understanding?

Only one overall situation has been thus far. A book which contained an accurate overview would not be seen to be accurate by the entire world. People in the world are born essentially ignorant, do not initially have the knowledge and experience necessary to know the truth, are taught and accept incomplete and/or incorrect ideas, etc......

Even a complete lie is based on -and is an inaccurate description of -the truth.

It is true that even a completely accurate quote of the truth from a perfect being would still be heard or read by imperfect beings -and could then be misunderstood -the misunderstanding passed on, etc...

It is also true that humans communicate in imperfect languages built upon incomplete understanding of the universal truth -and so are inherently prone to allowing misunderstanding -and any truth written or spoken in those languages would also be.

God did not actually write the bible -that is true. However, that is not the same as saying some things written in the bible are not direct quotes of truth from God (or others who knew the truth) -who intended that they be written by men, and were expressed to them and written by them in their imperfect languages -and were then subject to misunderstanding, incorrect translation, alteration, etc....

Also -as humans know -much care must be taken in the revealing of facts/truths (when, where, how, to whom at what point, etc.) in order to create the best possible outcome.

Some bible verses on the subject....

Zep 3:9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

Mar 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

 

[McBell]

and what pray tell is deeper than God?.

That which made god.
Cause and effect you know.

And before the whining starts, cause and effect keep going.
Even after you reach your desired destination.

 

[Thief]

That which made god.
Cause and effect you know.

And before the whining starts, cause and effect keep going.
Even after you reach your desired destination.

that point of singularity?
where the hall of mirror trick comes to a starting 'point'?

 

[McBell]

that point of singularity?
where the hall of mirror trick comes to a starting 'point'?

that is your problem, not mine.
I am not the one claiming cause and effect to get to god then ditching cause and effect the second I get to god.
That is you.

So if you dislike your hall of mirrors trick (your phrase, not mine) you should do something about it.

 

[sojourner]

Moses didn't say we were good, anything about it being right to use humans for blood atonement; Moses saw how long it took for a people to become corrupted, if that is what you meant.

1) many believe Moses wrote Genesis. I'm suire that's not the case, but nonetheless, it's a valid, traditional argument.
2) Genesis said that humanity was created good.

 

[Thief]

that is your problem, not mine.
I am not the one claiming cause and effect to get to god then ditching cause and effect the second I get to god.
That is you.

So if you dislike your hall of mirrors trick (your phrase, not mine) you should do something about it.

already did....and that's not a problem.....

Spirit first.

 

[sojourner]

I agree about Rome and that time frame but I continue to see the Bible as being written to set down rules, particularly as it pertains to Paul, that one must follow or be cast out of that faith, possibly resulting in hell. Paul's treatment of women is particularly egregious and points to attempts to completely control women to the point of making them chattel and silent in many cases.

The stuff that has been attributed to Paul has been determined to be later additions to Paul. If Paul were "all about the rules," why would he have said what he did about love being the Law?

 

[sojourner]

Perhaps but how would one not interpret anything from one's own POV? Or bias, etc, if you will. How does anyone read anything that one doesn't do same? You might read the Sermon on the Mount and get one particular idea while I might get something entirely different. If we take the exegetical POV and assume that the Bible is historically accurate, how then do we come to terms with the inherent mistakes contained therein. I personally cannot see any other approach the eisegetical. But of course, I view this from a theologian's vantage point as well.

Exegesis doesn't assume that the texts are historically accurate. Exegesis uses historical criticism to determine the historical veracity of what's written.

Only when we know what's actually written, and the accuracy of it, and the reasons for the inaccuracies (all of which is included in the process of exegesis) can we construct theologies that make sense.

 

[McBell]

already did....and that's not a problem.....

Spirit first.

I was wondering how long before your dogma popped up.

 

[sojourner]

You are absolutely correct and i was stretching the truth there. Mea Culpa on that Sojourner. I know you knew that I knew the correct dates but, again, I was just being a bit dramatic for effect and I should have been much more accurate given my educational background. I stand corrected and in the corner for a well earned time out.

When was hyperbole ever a capital offense?

 

[wizanda]

2) Genesis said that humanity was created good.

Yeah, then according to Genesis we were kicked out of the garden of Eden, and the reality was changed, where women would give birth, snakes lost their legs, and we would have to toil for food.

 

[Thief]

I was wondering how long before your dogma popped up.

why not leave this thread to what Jesus said.....
I think He claimed to have been at that starting....'point'

 

[sojourner]

Academia only has one small place in religious knowledge. Academia that does not have understanding of religious concepts, yet babbles about them /which is much/, is actually useless, and a hindrance to the religion.

it is only through academia, though, that we are able to know religious knowledge, when all we have are ancient texts written in foreign languages, coming out of ancient and foreign cultures. We don't know what the religious concepts are without academic understanding. To say that "Jesus died for my sin" isn't enough. We need to know 1) if that's the actual message, 2) if our understanding of that message is the same as the ancient understanding, 3) why that statement was the case, 4) what implications that statement had in the culture in which it was written, 5) how the understanding may have changed -- or needed to change -- due to cultural differences, or in order to remain relevant, etc. We ahve a whole historic tradition that we need to fit into consistently, and in order to do that, we have to have an academic understanding of that tradition.

 

[sojourner]

Yeah, then according to Genesis we were kicked out of the garden of Eden, and the reality was changed, where women would give birth, snakes lost their legs, and we would have to toil for food.

Doesn't mean that we're not still inherently created good.