Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[dzung]

Such is the schizophrenia of the dual!

Can you please elaborate further or your starting point for that perception? Are you on yourself or following any thinkers?

[Fooloso4]

jerlands:

This is an example of the problem in taking things out of context.

No, it is an example of the problem of you forgetting what the context of our discussion is, that is, who is the herald of Christianity and the difference between Jesus’ Jewish teachings and Christianity; the difference between a man who teaches about his God and a religion that in time makes that man into a god. Pointing to something from Christian mythology is not evidence that this mythology would have been accepted by Jesus. Of course once he is dead they could say anything they wanted about him without him admonishing them. We really do not know if Jesus actually said go to the lost sheep of Israel but it is consonant with the Jewish notion of the messiah and the quote from Jeremiah.

The apostles traveled widely, into regions not populated by Jews so their main audience was not Jews.

Your assumption that these regions were not populated by Jews is wrong.

Hear the word of the Lord, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock. (Jeremiah 31:10)

Here is a link to the “Diaspora” of the Jews: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-diaspora

[jerlands]

Jerlands wrote:

Fooloso4 wrote: ↑Yesterday, 9:00 pm
jerlands:
Well, I think that's hard to fathom.
Compare Paul’s letters to the Sermon on the Mount regarding the Law. See also the quote from Matthew below. To fathom this does not require digging very deep, but dig you must if you are to fathom. Whether you believe it is another story.


(Jerlands's reply)Fathom is actually a measure of the depth of water but originates from old english "length of outstretched arms so no digging required, snorkeling maybe. aside from that you lost me somewhere after "Matthew below?"

One must guess Jerlands that English is not your native language. Nevertheless it's stupid to argue about a colloquial phrase with someone who so obviously is a master of it.

You missed the point entirely...

[jerlands]

jerlands:

This is an example of the problem in taking things out of context.

No, it is an example of the problem of you forgetting what the context of our discussion is, that is, who is the herald of Christianity and the difference between Jesus’ Jewish teachings and Christianity; the difference between a man who teaches about his God and a religion that in time makes that man into a god. Pointing to something from Christian mythology is not evidence that this mythology would have been accepted by Jesus. Of course once he is dead they could say anything they wanted about him without him admonishing them. We really do not know if Jesus actually said go to the lost sheep of Israel but it is consonant with the Jewish notion of the messiah and the quote from Jeremiah.

The herald is not a who, the herald is the word which was passed by many. Like a trumpet or a song or the wind, the cock's crow heralds the breaking of the dawn. Herald is the messenger and the message is that contained within. The herald of Christianity, like a banner, was carried by many. As for the evolution of Jesus from messiah (messenger) to God is tangential but God was equaled to the word and the word was made flesh. The notion is really the word.

The apostles traveled widely, into regions not populated by Jews so their main audience was not Jews.

Your assumption that these regions were not populated by Jews is wrong.

Hear the word of the Lord, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock. (Jeremiah 31:10)

Here is a link to the “Diaspora” of the Jews: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-diaspora

Put things into perspective. The law, the torah, was carried by the Jews and the word proceeded them. Christ died around 32 CE and after his death the apostles were told to go out and spread the word like one might do with fertilizer on a field. The destruction of Jerusalem occured in 70 CE.

[Fooloso4]

jerlands:

The herald is not a who, the herald is the word which was passed by many.

But there is no evidence that the words, that is, the message of the original apostles have anything to do with “the word”.

Herald is the messenger and the message is that contained within.

And the message of Christianity is not the message of Jesus but of Paul and those who follow. You admit that this is something you cannot fathom. It would be pointless for me to keep repeating it.

God was equaled to the word and the word was made flesh.

This is something that Jesus would never have said. In fact it is not something that Paul would have said. It is a completely pagan notion that appears in John. It is not an evolution but a grafting of pagan belief onto Paul’s Christianity.

The law, the torah, was carried by the Jews and the word proceeded them.

Where in the Law or the Torah is there any mention of the word? This is nothing more than a profession of belief that ignores the beliefs that can actually be found in the Hebrew Bible. It is something proclaimed by John. Dare I say he was the herald of this idea?

Christ died around 32 CE and after his death the apostles were told to go out and spread the word like one might do with fertilizer on a field.

That’s funny. Do you know what they used to fertilize their fields?

The destruction of Jerusalem occured in 70 CE.

The history of the Diaspora began long before the destruction of the Temple.

[jerlands]

jerlands:

The herald is not a who, the herald is the word which was passed by many.

But there is no evidence that the words, that is, the message of the original apostles have anything to do with “the word”.

This is ridiculous. I don't even know where to begin because I'm now in the void where nothing exists. The teaching Jesus brought is called "intelligence of the heart" and that is contained in Paul's teaching. We develop intelligence of the heart through self examination, consideration for others as ourselves. If you're looking for specifics don't because it is a synthesis and not a single expression. It is the whole and not a part. Jesus was the word and any and all of the apostles testified to this. A cake is not just flour but you have eggs and sugar, milk and butter etc.,. Get the picture?

Herald is the messenger and the message is that contained within.

And the message of Christianity is not the message of Jesus but of Paul and those who follow. You admit that this is something you cannot fathom. It would be pointless for me to keep repeating it.

What I can't fathom is stupidity as it is boundless.

God was equaled to the word and the word was made flesh.

This is something that Jesus would never have said. In fact it is not something that Paul would have said. It is a completely pagan notion that appears in John. It is not an evolution but a grafting of pagan belief onto Paul’s Christianity.

John 1:14 King James Version (KJV)
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The law, the torah, was carried by the Jews and the word proceeded them.

Where in the Law or the Torah is there any mention of the word? This is nothing more than a profession of belief that ignores the beliefs that can actually be found in the Hebrew Bible. It is something proclaimed by John. Dare I say he was the herald of this idea?

Think of Moses... The birth of a nation... God spoke to Moses... the word is the messenger that conveys the meaning.

Christ died around 32 CE and after his death the apostles were told to go out and spread the word like one might do with fertilizer on a field.

That’s funny. Do you know what they used to fertilize their fields?

You fertilize a field with what it's lacking.. that's the idea behind it.

The destruction of Jerusalem occured in 70 CE.

The history of the Diaspora began long before the destruction of the Temple.

Yes, the Diaspora began after the first destruction and there were Jews across three continents at the time of Christ. The question however is who the NT was addressing. Paul undoubtedly influenced Gentile populations but were the other apostles speaking to Jewish populations or were they addressing Gentile populations? It is true that Jewish communities offered hospitality to Jewish travelers but the message was received and adopted by Gentile populations who in fact were the intended target for the word (message) given through Christianity. Jesus was a Jew and it was through his people the word was spread.

[Fooloso4]

jerlands:

This is ridiculous.

Okay jer, believe whatever you want to believe. There is solid academic scholarship to back up every ridiculous thing I have said. Of course this work is guide by intelligence and evidence rather than "intelligence of the heart".

If you're looking for specifics don't because it is a synthesis and not a single expression.

I take it as a basic rule of hermeneutics to pay attention to specifics. If you want to create a synthesis that ignores specifics that’s up to you. If you want to ignore history and scholarship that’s up to you.

Jesus was the word and any and all of the apostles testified to this.

This comes from the gospel of John. Nowhere in the other texts is there any support for this claim. John was not one of the apostles. But ignore those specifics if they get in the way of what you want to see.

A cake is not just flour but you have eggs and sugar, milk and butter etc.,. Get the picture?

Sure, you can bake the texts in order to get the picture you want, but ignore the specifics such as flour or eggs and you don’t have a cake.

What I can't fathom is stupidity as it is boundless.

Consider this an unofficial moderator’s warning. There is scholarly support for everything I have said. If you choose not to believe it, don’t, but don’t call me or what I say stupid.

John 1:14 King James Version (KJV)
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

You cite John as evidence that what I said is found in John is not found elsewhere in the Bible?

Think of Moses... The birth of a nation... God spoke to Moses... the word is the messenger that conveys the meaning.

If God spoke to Moses then God is the messenger. Moses is tasked with being the messenger to the people. Then is nothing in that message about the word made flesh or the only begotten son.

The question however is who the NT was addressing.

It is I think clear that the NT addresses the gentile Christians. The question that I have raised is whether what Paul tells his followers and what they in turn tell others is what Jesus told his disciples. If someone who had no preconceived notion of what the NT is supposed to be about, and three columns were made to compare are said to be the words of Jesus while he was alive, the words of Paul, and the words of John, I think it safe to say that this person would conclude that they were saying very different things.

Paul undoubtedly influenced Gentile populations but were the other apostles speaking to Jewish populations or were they addressing Gentile populations?

According to Matthew they were speaking to Jews. The message was that the Kingdom of heaven was at hand and to keep the Law:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-19)

It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid. (Luke 16:17)

Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?” (John 7:19)

Paul, however, tells his followers:

For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. (Romans 6:14)

Now you can ignore the details, as you must, if your primary motivation is to see the NT as a single whole, but if you pay attention to details, as you should, then we begin to see that attempts at synthesis, both those of the authors and reader, fail.

I think we have taken this as far as we can go. It may be your way to continue arguing without end, but I think we have reached the end.

[jerlands]

jerlands:

This is ridiculous.

Okay jer, believe whatever you want to believe. There is solid academic scholarship to back up every ridiculous thing I have said. Of course this work is guide by intelligence and evidence rather than "intelligence of the heart".

Matthew 13:14 "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." Intelligence is to understand. If you question the understanding of the heart then you don't understand the heart.

If you're looking for specifics don't because it is a synthesis and not a single expression.

I take it as a basic rule of hermeneutics to pay attention to specifics. If you want to create a synthesis that ignores specifics that’s up to you. If you want to ignore history and scholarship that’s up to you.

The body utilizes food through a number of processes. The end points are what's known as catabolism and anabolism and it's actually the health of the body that allows these process to function properly.

Jesus was the word and any and all of the apostles testified to this.

This comes from the gospel of John. Nowhere in the other texts is there any support for this claim. John was not one of the apostles. But ignore those specifics if they get in the way of what you want to see.

Where do you get John wasn't one of the apostles? The authorship of the gospel of John might be questionable but the the apostle John is considered it's inspiration. As for what other texts contain... The teaching of the greatest commandment is found in only two of the how many books of the NT? If you look at the percentage of text written within the NT you'll find that the passages that speak of the greatest commandment might compromise .02% but does that reflect the value of the teaching?

A cake is not just flour but you have eggs and sugar, milk and butter etc.,. Get the picture?

Sure, you can bake the texts in order to get the picture you want, but ignore the specifics such as flour or eggs and you don’t have a cake.

This was my point... You won't find the cake in the egg or in the flour or in the salt or in any individual ingredient and even if the cake flops you'll probably will still find the intention of the cake.

What I can't fathom is stupidity as it is boundless.

Consider this an unofficial moderator’s warning. There is scholarly support for everything I have said. If you choose not to believe it, don’t, but don’t call me or what I say stupid.

I think it's a true statement and where it's applicable should be self evident.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein

John 1:14 King James Version (KJV)
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

You cite John as evidence that what I said is found in John is not found elsewhere in the Bible?

What percentage of the cake is baking powder but how important to the cake is it?

Think of Moses... The birth of a nation... God spoke to Moses... the word is the messenger that conveys the meaning.

If God spoke to Moses then God is the messenger. Moses is tasked with being the messenger to the people. Then is nothing in that message about the word made flesh or the only begotten son.

What's the definition of confounded? It literally means to mix up. You specifically asked where the notion of the "word as God" being mentioned in the OT. If you want everything delivered to you in a single expression than I suggest you will never find that.

The question however is who the NT was addressing.

It is I think clear that the NT addresses the gentile Christians. The question that I have raised is whether what Paul tells his followers and what they in turn tell others is what Jesus told his disciples. If someone who had no preconceived notion of what the NT is supposed to be about, and three columns were made to compare are said to be the words of Jesus while he was alive, the words of Paul, and the words of John, I think it safe to say that this person would conclude that they were saying very different things.

It's really hard to see the forest through the trees or the intricacies of the trees through the forest.
Think of the NT as a symphony. The movement created is the synthesis of of all the effects arising from these bits and pieces of sound.

Paul undoubtedly influenced Gentile populations but were the other apostles speaking to Jewish populations or were they addressing Gentile populations?

According to Matthew they were speaking to Jews. The message was that the Kingdom of heaven was at hand and to keep the Law:

The law as defined by Jesus is found in Matthew 22:35-40 and Mark 12:28-34

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-19)

It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid. (Luke 16:17)

Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?” (John 7:19)

Paul, however, tells his followers:

For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. (Romans 6:14)

Now you can ignore the details, as you must, if your primary motivation is to see the NT as a single whole, but if you pay attention to details, as you should, then we begin to see that attempts at synthesis, both those of the authors and reader, fail.

I think we have taken this as far as we can go. It may be your way to continue arguing without end, but I think we have reached the end.

Again, you're taking things out of context where things require context to understand. Romans addresses a group of people with a mindset. To fully appreciate, we though have that mindset where things might appear black and white as in given law but there is within the message to be found other substance.

[Namelesss]

Such is the schizophrenia of the dual!

Can you please elaborate further or your starting point for that perception?

I do not understand your question; the 'starting point for a perception'?
I can elaborate the meaning, as I see it, but the 'starting point'?
There was some 'train of thought', some immediate intuition, some experience/Knowledge, much (original) research and much simple paying of attention/Mindfulness...

Are you on yourself or following any thinkers?

The only 'thinker' that I 'follow', is me!
If I do offer the words of another, they are always attributed.
Ten people throughout history can simultaneously perceive a particular thought, none 'invented/created/originated' it, but there seem to be some Perspectives that are a bit more... 'original' (for lack of a better word) than the common fare, what the rabble might call 'creative' and 'creative genius' (if that is what they are told to think)... *__-

[Belindi]

Jerlands quoted:

John 1:14 King James Version (KJV)
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The words and the image are beautiful.
Foolosof had said that incarnation of a deity is a pagan notion. I had not known that. In any case so what, Jerlands? Cannot you accept that Christianity was synthesised from several sources?

As an atheist of sorts it's odd that I'm a better supporter of Christianity than some who claim to be Christians!

Jerlands wrote:

The body utilizes food through a number of processes. The end points are what's known as catabolism and anabolism and it's actually the health of the body that allows these process to function properly.

Your physiological thinking too is teleological. ("Allows")

[jerlands]

Jerlands quoted:

John 1:14 King James Version (KJV)
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The words and the image are beautiful.
Foolosof had said that incarnation of a deity is a pagan notion. I had not known that. In any case so what, Jerlands?

First.. the notion of polytheism may be corrupted as Egypt was not polytheistic but monotheistic and what we confuse as individual gods are actually aspects of the one God. Hedonism is altogether different in that is is an uneducated view. Second.. man is the incarnation of a deity in that man's physical body is the microcosm of the universe, man being the crown of creation. However, the mind is last stage of evolution which is still in that process.

Cannot you accept that Christianity was synthesised from several sources?

Christianity is the teaching of Christ (Jesus) which is given us through many sources (testimony). Foolosof implies since John is not a Synoptic Gospel it somehow has diminished value. So.. the heart of Foolosof's position seems to the in questioning the validity of any of the writings. To revalidate is really out of my control or scope. Other men selected text, proofed them, bundled them up and gave them to us. I'm not at all denying intelligent introspection on the matter but I want to limit it to that.

As an atheist of sorts it's odd that I'm a better supporter of Christianity than some who claim to be Christians!

Jerlands wrote:

The body utilizes food through a number of processes. The end points are what's known as catabolism and anabolism and it's actually the health of the body that allows these process to function properly.

Your physiological thinking too is teleological. ("Allows")

Just seems to me you have an apple and an orange.

[Belindi]

Jerlands wrote:

Christianity is the teaching of Christ (Jesus) which is given us through many sources (testimony).

But scholars cannot easily say exactly which teachings pertain to the Jesus of history. The Jesus Seminar has studied this problem.

https://www.westarinstitute.org/

[jerlands]

Jerlands wrote:

Christianity is the teaching of Christ (Jesus) which is given us through many sources (testimony).

But scholars cannot easily say exactly which teachings pertain to the Jesus of history. The Jesus Seminar has studied this problem.

https://www.westarinstitute.org/

Ok.. so where are any of the results from their study?

[Belindi]

Jerlands, they did publish detailed results about maybe fifteen years ago. I will see if I can find them for you.

According to the Jesus Seminar:

Jesus of Nazareth was born during the reign of Herod the Great.
His mother's name was Mary, and he had a human father whose name may not have been Joseph.
Jesus was born in Nazareth, not in Bethlehem.
Jesus was an itinerant sage who shared meals with social outcasts.
Jesus practiced faith healing without the use of ancient medicine or magic, relieving afflictions we now consider psychosomatic.
He did not walk on water, feed the multitude with loaves and fishes, change water into wine or raise Lazarus from the dead.
Jesus was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified by the Romans.
He was executed as a public nuisance, not for claiming to be the Son of God.
The empty tomb is a fiction – Jesus was not raised bodily from the dead.
Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul, Peter and Mary Magdalene

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

[jerlands]

Jerlands, they did publish detailed results about maybe fifteen years ago. I will see if I can find them for you.

According to the Jesus Seminar:

Jesus of Nazareth was born during the reign of Herod the Great.
His mother's name was Mary, and he had a human father whose name may not have been Joseph.
Jesus was born in Nazareth, not in Bethlehem.
Jesus was an itinerant sage who shared meals with social outcasts.
Jesus practiced faith healing without the use of ancient medicine or magic, relieving afflictions we now consider psychosomatic.
He did not walk on water, feed the multitude with loaves and fishes, change water into wine or raise Lazarus from the dead.
Jesus was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified by the Romans.
He was executed as a public nuisance, not for claiming to be the Son of God.
The empty tomb is a fiction – Jesus was not raised bodily from the dead.
Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul, Peter and Mary Magdalene

The whole article containing methodology, history, and criticism is on 'jesus seminar' on Wikipedia.

Wow.. I guess that changes everything. There are many more idiots in the world then wise men.