ForumGarden

Doesn't that show how the meaning of the Bible changes with each interpretation & translation.

I think the problem here is that "Jealous" has two current meanings in English. One can be "Jealous OF" someone else, in which case one envies that person. One can also, as in these stories about God, be "Jealous FOR" oneself, which is a matter of pride relating to how one is treated and perceived, and there's no envy involved. My own opinion is that "Jealous OF" is bad English and misuses the word "Jealous" as an inaccurate synonym for envious, and that "Jealous FOR" is the only correct usage.

FourPart;1475012 wrote: Doesn't that show how the meaning of the Bible changes with each interpretation & translation.


Excuse me? The Word of God? Neither you nor I are believers, I can see.

High Threshold;1475015 wrote: Neither you nor I are believers, I can see.
Is it your opinion that one must be a believer in order to be a Christian?

spot;1475014 wrote: I think the problem here is that "Jealous" has two current meanings in English. One can be "Jealous OF" someone else, in which case one envies that person. One can also, as in these stories about God, be "Jealous FOR" oneself, which is a matter of pride relating to how one is treated and perceived, and there's no envy involved. My own opinion is that "Jealous OF" is bad English and misuses the word "Jealous" as an inaccurate synonym for envious, and that "Jealous FOR" is the only correct usage.


I don't think that I understand which one means "FOR" and which one means "OF" but I do agree that envy and jealousy are not the same thing.

High Threshold;1475017 wrote: I don't think that I understand which one means "FOR" and which one means "OF" but I do agree that envy and jealousy are not the same thing.


The FOR and OF are parts of sentences in which JEALOUS is used. Here's two examples:

I'm jealous of Fred, he has his own private jet. for my reputation. <<< This is a correct use of JEALOUS

spot;1475016 wrote: Is it your opinion that one must be a believer in order to be a Christian?


To what purpose? To be a Christian … or to be a member of the Christian Church? MY OPINION to the first is ”yes”, MY OPINION to the second is “no”.

spot;1475018 wrote: The FOR and OF are parts of sentences in which JEALOUS is used. Here's two examples:

I'm jealous of Fred, he has his own private jet.


I agree.

spot;1475018 wrote: If you repeat that to anyone I'll write you out of my will, I'm jealous for my reputation.


I don't agree. I see jealousy as pertaining strictly to les affaires de cœur.

High Threshold;1475000 wrote: You must be quoting the American translation. I'm still going with envy.

Swedish: "Ty om avund och kiv finnes bland eder, haven I icke då ett köttsligt sinne, och vandren I icke då på vanligt människosätt?" Envy.


In English - For if envy and strife there is among you, are ye not carnal, and walk as the men? "

G#Gill;1475029 wrote: In English - For if envy and strife there is among you, are ye not carnal, and walk as the men? "


Carnal indeed! Let's keep the subject of sex out of this, shall we Miss Gill? This is a thread about Our Dear Lord who believes in virginal birth ... no place for smutty talk. Definitely NSFW. :wah:

High Threshold;1475024 wrote: I don't agree. I see jealousy as pertaining strictly to les affaires de cœur.


You'll find an example in 2 Corinthians 11:1 - For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy

Nobody's going to pretend that's an affair of the heart. The abbreviated OED site has the appropriate subject - 1.2 Fiercely protective of one’s rights or possessions.

spot;1475037 wrote: You'll find an example in 2 Corinthians 11:1 - For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy

..................


Yes ------

Swedish: "Ty jag nitälskar för eder såsom Gud nitälskar ...... "

Nitälskar (ancient Swedish) = Jealous. But, Älskar = Love.

spot;1475037 wrote: Nobody's going to pretend that's an affair of the heart.


Well, it is proclaiming "love" and the relevance of God. You don't consider that an affair of the heart? I do.

High Threshold;1475038 wrote: Well, it is proclaiming "love" and the relevance of God. You don't consider that an affair of the heart? I do.The language of the emotions is far too vague for me to find any sympathy with it. To quote one of our many magnificent dead Englishmen, I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.

spot;1475048 wrote: The language of the emotions is far too vague for me to find any sympathy with it. To quote one of our many magnificent dead Englishmen, I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.


Goodness. I have no convictions one way or the other. I do lean strongly in the direction I've stated, but no convictions. I am not a believer no matter which way you slice it. This is all academic discussion for me. The Bible was written (I'm told) in Hebrew. You say the English translation says one thing and I say the Swedish translation says another. So it is your “belief” vs. my “belief” or should I say your guess vs. my guess.

I don't believe in either heaven or hell so debating against the hoard doesn't frighten me,

and as far as Christ's bowels well, he'll just have to stay clear of the chilli.

If God turns out to be a Swede, the afterlife will presumably involve long dinner-parties, three-hour Episcopalian Sunday Sermons and more sex than procreation strictly requires.

spot;1475079 wrote: If God turns out to be a Swede, the afterlife will presumably involve long dinner-parties, three-hour Episcopalian Sunday Sermons and more sex than procreation strictly requires.


Boring, in other words. I was hoping for some sort of reward for putting up with all of that during my time on earth. I mean, I don't mind the sex but the foreplay puts me to sleep before anything exiting happens.

Ahso!;1474755 wrote: That's the only one you wish to cite - the intent behind the "teaching" of "Love your enemies"? Nothing else is attributable to Jesus exclusively?


That exclusive quote brings the whole issue of moral perfection into focus. If you cannot love the worst: you will be tainted with hatred in your heart; if Jesus spoke nothing else, that contribution alone brings men to understand that evil must be uprooted in ones own heart: in order for it to be totally eradicated. But when added to the mix with all of Jesus other teachings it shows us how to rid evil in us.

The problem has been that men have canonized Paul's garbage ideologies in with Jesus' practical teachings and thus those who profess to be followers of Jesus have not done so because they have been unable to separate the teachings of Jesus from the teachings of Paul and thus they have failed to gain clarity on obedience to the teachings of Christ as the way to purify themselves of evil..

I don't expect you to understand the issues, but I having worked through them am saddened by the inclusion of Paul into the bible and peoples lives, as he is the greatest stumbling to true Christianity from taking form on the earth.

So, if I can show you that your Jesus was not the first to advocate this you'll agree that your Jesus had nothing special to teach?

Ahso!;1475852 wrote: So, if I can show you that your Jesus was not the first to advocate this you'll agree that your Jesus had nothing special to teach?


I'm sure you don't think it's going to be that easy. :wah:

I have nothing against his teachings of Peace. They were certainly radical in his day & age for that particular culture of violence & brutality (which, let's face it, hasn't really changed that much in the past 2000 years). However, he was by no means the first to come up with the ideas. He may have come up with hte ideas independantly, but those same ideas had also been taught 1000s of years earlier by many other philosophers.

Ahso!;1475852 wrote: So, if I can show you that your Jesus was not the first to advocate this you'll agree that your Jesus had nothing special to teach?


It is the collective of Jesus' teachings that are unique; show another person that put the collective of the teachings that Jesus did into one life. But I have to say, I have looked and I personally cannot find another person that made the statement to "love your enemy" before Christ.

sheep;1475917 wrote: It is the collective of Jesus' teachings that are unique; show another person that put the collective of the teachings that Jesus did into one life. But I have to say, I have looked and I personally cannot find another person that made the statement to "love your enemy" before Christ.
The link was provided earlier in this thread (I think), although I can't remember who first included it, but here it is again...

Biblical Errancy: Jesus was not the first to teach 'Love Your Enemy'

Not always in the same words - for that matter, simply by the Bible having been translated & re-interpteted countless time, even they aren't the same words, but the meanings are clearly the same, preceding Jesus by thousands of years.

Once again, I don't object to the teaching. It's the attributation of his being the first to say it that I object to.

FourPart;1475875 wrote: ..... he was by no means the first to come up with the ideas.....


Not being an expert, I'm going to take a stab at it anyway. Wasn't Jesus the first to suggest that there are "3" Gods? Jews and Muslims believe in "1" God. Hindus believe in ... uh ..... now where is that calculator of mine? So I reckon Jesus was the originator of "3" Gods, but other than that I doubt he came up with a single original idea at all.

Actually, no. The Trinity doesn't claim to be 3 Gods, rather than 3 parts of the same God.

God in three persons

In Trinitarian doctrine, God exists as three persons or hypostases, but is one being, having a single divine nature.[52] The members of the Trinity are co-equal and co-eternal, one in essence, nature, power, action, and will. As stated in the Athanasian Creed, the Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated, and all three are eternal without beginning.[53] "The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" are not names for different parts of God, but one name for God[54] because three persons exist in God as one entity.[55] They cannot be separate from one another. Each person is understood as having the identical essence or nature, not merely similar natures.
Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For instance, I am Male. I am of an Understanding Nature. I am Mortal. All these are 3 different parts of me. I am, therefore a Trinity. It doesn't mean I am three different entities, though.

This is something which, essentially, exists in most other Religions.

sheep;1475917 wrote: It is the collective of Jesus' teachings that are unique; show another person that put the collective of the teachings that Jesus did into one life. But I have to say, I have looked and I personally cannot find another person that made the statement to "love your enemy" before Christ. Only a verbatim statement of "love your enemy" is acceptable now? And you've decided to change your answer to my original question?

FourPart;1475929 wrote: Actually, no. The Trinity doesn't claim to be 3 Gods, rather than 3 parts of the same God.
"Slice it" anyway you like ..... it still adds up to "3". the Father, the SON and the Holy Spirit.





FourPart;1475929 wrote: For instance, I am Male. I am of an Understanding Nature. I am Mortal. All these are 3 different parts of me. I am, therefore a Trinity. It doesn't mean I am three different entities, though.


I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (but no conceded conviction) as applies to the Holy Spirit but I'm not letting you off the hook about the other "2". The FATHER, and The SON. Sorry mate, those are no "parts". Those are two distinctive entities. Now before you trot out the "standard reply number 9" and think that you can subdue the complaint - think again. If you can only get to the Father by way of the Son ..... well! Save your breath.

But if you insist on holding your course then from now on I'd appreciate it if you'd refer to me as the “Dozenity”: I am a Man – a Father – a Husband – a Retiree – a Bonsai Hobyist – an Ex-Catholic – a Thinker – of an Understanding Nature – a Mortal – a Joker – a Scoundrel - and a Loof.

High Threshold;1475952 wrote: "Slice it" anyway you like ..... it still adds up to "3". the Father, the SON and the Holy Spirit.







I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (but no conceded conviction) as applies to the Holy Spirit but I'm not letting you off the hook about the other "2". The FATHER, and The SON. Sorry mate, those are no "parts". Those are two distinctive entities. Now before you trot out the "standard reply number 9" and think that you can subdue the complaint - think again. If you can only get to the Father by way of the Son ..... well! Save your breath.

But if you insist on holding your course then from now on I'd appreciate it if you'd refer to me as the “Dozenity”: I am a Man – a Father – a Husband – a Retiree – a Bonsai Hobyist – an Ex-Catholic – a Thinker – of an Understanding Nature – a Mortal – a Joker – a Scoundrel - and a Loof.


I think you misunderstand me. I'm the one that's ANTI-Religious. I don't consider Jesus to be any sort of Deity. He was just a man, like any other, with some pretty radical ideas for his culture at the time. He, as with others of his culture was a devout Jew, and referred to his God as the Father, not just of himself, but of all Mankind - just as most other religions do. He referred to the omnipotence of his God of being always present as being in the spirit. Just as most other religions do. HE never claimed to be THE son of God, only A son of God, just as with all men. When challenged at his trial as to whether he claimed to be the son of God, he was reported to say "That is what you say", not "Yes". The other claims were made by his followers exaggerating his status. The point is that nothing attributed to him was in any way or form a truly original idea. It has all been recorded by others who said the same sort of things millenia before he even came onto the scene.

FourPart;1475956 wrote: I think you misunderstand me. I'm the one that's ANTI-Religious. I don't consider Jesus to be any sort of Deity. He was just a man, like any other, with some pretty radical ideas for his culture at the time. He, as with others of his culture was a devout Jew, and referred to his God as the Father, not just of himself, but of all Mankind - just as most other religions do. He referred to the omnipotence of his God of being always present as being in the spirit. Just as most other religions do. HE never claimed to be THE son of God, only A son of God, just as with all men. When challenged at his trial as to whether he claimed to be the son of God, he was reported to say "That is what you say", not "Yes". The other claims were made by his followers exaggerating his status. The point is that nothing attributed to him was in any way or form a truly original idea. It has all been recorded by others who said the same sort of things millenia before he even came onto the scene.


Then why are we having this discussion?

High Threshold;1475959 wrote: Then why are we having this discussion?
Because the claim was that he was the first to say such things. I say he wasn't.

FourPart;1475981 wrote: Because the claim was that he was the first to say such things. I say he wasn't.
The discussion between the two of us must have created an excess of centrifugal force and I was standing too close to the outer edge of it.

I love that reading that says Jesus was exalted to the right hand of God where he sits on a throne. If Jesus was God does that mean that God is beside himself? I have no doubts about the historical Jesus of Nazareth. He was indeed a real person. What he did has changed to course of world history over the past 2200 years. However the writers of the gospels whomever they were never met the historical Jesus. Whatever happened at Easter, it was powerful. So all of the theological appendages were then heaped upon him. I am a follower of this Jesus. We do see in him a manifestation of the nature of God. Jesus was not God. He always pointed to his Father.

How delightful to see you here again Ted, it's a pleasure.

Ted;1480741 wrote: I love that reading that says Jesus was exalted to the right hand of God where he sits on a throne. If Jesus was God does that mean that God is beside himself? I have no doubts about the historical Jesus of Nazareth. He was indeed a real person. What he did has changed to course of world history over the past 2200 years.


That's why he is the first on my list called "10 Jews that Changed the World."

Thanks Spot. A pleasure to be back.

I think it refers to carry on with the ancient beliefs in ancient myths applied to Jesus of Nazareth. ie. believing the creation storis are factual history. I think the Heida creation stories are neat as well.

This thing about a prtsonal savior is, in my view a nonstarter. It is premised on the theology of the substitutionary atonement of Jesus. The fact is Jesus was percieved as a troublmaker and a threat to the empire. Basically he was crucified for treason. To say that God was so petulent that he wanted blood is in my view blasphemy. What would that tell us about God?

Christianity is not about right or correct belief. There are some 22000 variations on the theme and many of them claim to have the only truth. It is intended to be a faith (trust) in God and following in his footsteps. Also the words attributed to Jesus, 80% cannot be traced back to the historical Jesus They are the words the evangelists put into his mouth. They, in many cases may reflect some of his thinking.

The word translated as faith comes from pistis which means trust not faith