Thanks for getting this back on topic again, Ted :-6
I wonder if many people are more ready to hear what you speak of than you imagine. Only one way to find out. I would like to see you start a thread in 'Christianity' on the archelogical aspects. Does this include the Dead Sea scrolls?
The Bible- Is It the Word of God?
The Bible- Is It the Word of God?
Koan :-6
I have a copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In fact I was asked if I would work on their translation. I am not completely aprised of their content but I know something of their discovery and something of the interpretations that are attached to them. I try to read more and more but other books take precedents and with my failing eyesight reading is to say the least a challenge.
I have to make two presentations over the next few weeks: one on the work of Dr. Marcus Borg and the other on my own views and my path. I'm looking forward to both. I like to keep the brain working.
Shalom
Ted :-6
I have a copy of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In fact I was asked if I would work on their translation. I am not completely aprised of their content but I know something of their discovery and something of the interpretations that are attached to them. I try to read more and more but other books take precedents and with my failing eyesight reading is to say the least a challenge.
I have to make two presentations over the next few weeks: one on the work of Dr. Marcus Borg and the other on my own views and my path. I'm looking forward to both. I like to keep the brain working.
Shalom
Ted :-6
The Bible- Is It the Word of God?
Your work must be very fascinating. Since this is the 'word of god?' thread and the content of the bible is a considerable part of this issue, how is it explained that so many stories were removed from the bible. From your studies, what were the guidelines for what to keep and what to "throw away".
Also, were people really using the lost scrolls as firewood? If yes, what persentage do they estimate was destroyed. Are these documents written in a different style than the surviving stories. Does it fill in missing gaps in Jesus' life?
Starving for info. (I was going to put the yh drool but it kinda grossed me out)
Also, were people really using the lost scrolls as firewood? If yes, what persentage do they estimate was destroyed. Are these documents written in a different style than the surviving stories. Does it fill in missing gaps in Jesus' life?
Starving for info. (I was going to put the yh drool but it kinda grossed me out)
The Bible- Is It the Word of God?
Koan :-6
More "BIG" questions.
In about 367, the exact date escapes my mind at the moment a council was called by Constantine at the city of Carthage The council was composed of the bishops and church fathers. There job was to put together the canon of what we now call the Bible. The OT was done with some additions that are not in the Hebrew scriptures and then them began on the NT. They had many ancient documents but they were copies of the originals that had long since disappeared. There accuracy is fairly well accepted.
There were hundreds of documents reviewed and the discussions began as to which ones should be included and which ones should be left out. They chose the ones they felt best presented the life of Jesus in the most authentic way. It was done by a vote.
We must however. remember that the gospels being considered were based on the developing traditions of the early church. They reflected what the early church had come to believe about this man Jesus of Nazareth or more appropriately Yeshusa of Nazareth (Joshua)
That is basically how the Bible was put together. It was and is still consided a legitimate process by the church..
Shalom
Ted :-6
More "BIG" questions.
In about 367, the exact date escapes my mind at the moment a council was called by Constantine at the city of Carthage The council was composed of the bishops and church fathers. There job was to put together the canon of what we now call the Bible. The OT was done with some additions that are not in the Hebrew scriptures and then them began on the NT. They had many ancient documents but they were copies of the originals that had long since disappeared. There accuracy is fairly well accepted.
There were hundreds of documents reviewed and the discussions began as to which ones should be included and which ones should be left out. They chose the ones they felt best presented the life of Jesus in the most authentic way. It was done by a vote.
We must however. remember that the gospels being considered were based on the developing traditions of the early church. They reflected what the early church had come to believe about this man Jesus of Nazareth or more appropriately Yeshusa of Nazareth (Joshua)
That is basically how the Bible was put together. It was and is still consided a legitimate process by the church..
Shalom
Ted :-6
The Bible- Is It the Word of God?
Ted wrote: Koan :-6
There were hundreds of documents reviewed and the discussions began as to which ones should be included and which ones should be left out. They chose the ones they felt best presented the life of Jesus in the most authentic way. It was done by a vote.
We must however. remember that the gospels being considered were based on the developing traditions of the early church. They reflected what the early church had come to believe about this man Jesus of Nazareth or more appropriately Yeshusa of Nazareth (Joshua)
That is basically how the Bible was put together. It was and is still consided a legitimate process by the church..
Shalom
Ted :-6
Very democratic! Who was Constantine? what characteristics is he attributed with?
Don't think I would miss something like "based on the developing traditions of the early church" do you? What does this mean? What types of decisions would be based on their views at the time that may be different now?
There were hundreds of documents reviewed and the discussions began as to which ones should be included and which ones should be left out. They chose the ones they felt best presented the life of Jesus in the most authentic way. It was done by a vote.
We must however. remember that the gospels being considered were based on the developing traditions of the early church. They reflected what the early church had come to believe about this man Jesus of Nazareth or more appropriately Yeshusa of Nazareth (Joshua)
That is basically how the Bible was put together. It was and is still consided a legitimate process by the church..
Shalom
Ted :-6
Very democratic! Who was Constantine? what characteristics is he attributed with?
Don't think I would miss something like "based on the developing traditions of the early church" do you? What does this mean? What types of decisions would be based on their views at the time that may be different now?
The Bible- Is It the Word of God?
Koan :-6
Constantine was the emperor of the easter part of the Roman Empire after it kind of fell apart. His seat of authority became the city of Constantinople.
After Jesus had left the earthly scene his followers continued to follow in his footsteps. We know very litttle of Jesus though we do have some of the sayings that he left behind. Yeshua was no ordinary man, he was an eastern mystic, a spirit person, a healer and a teacher among other things. There was something obviously very profound about this man. We do not really know what happened at the Easter Experience but whatever it was was extremely powerful. It was powerful enough to turn his disciples who by then had run and hidden in mortal fear for their lives.
They had a profound experience that this Yeshua was still with them and the power that he seemed to wield. It was so profound they came out of their hiding places and began a very serious attempt in organizing the church and spreading his message.
As time went on the church developed rituals and traditions and those continued to develop. At one point or another the evangelists using history remembered and probably some collection of Yeshua's saying they produced the gospels.
This Yeshua was in fact such a profound figure that the early church came to believe as I do today that this risen lord was indeed in some profound way a continuation of the very human Jesus. He had obviously has a special relationship with God and this relationship convinced, along with their experiences of this Yeshua that He in fact was the long awaited Messiah.
Thus history remembered and the developing traditions gave us the Gospels and a more complete understanding of this Yeshua of Nazareth and the Risen Lord. Millions, including myself have felt the experiential reality of this risen Lord down through the centuries. I now consider myself but a humble servant of the Risen Lord.
In order to best read and understand the Sacred Scriptures it is a good idea to understand midrash and the extensive use of metaphor in the ancient writings. I hope this helps.
Shalom
Ted
:-6
Constantine was the emperor of the easter part of the Roman Empire after it kind of fell apart. His seat of authority became the city of Constantinople.
After Jesus had left the earthly scene his followers continued to follow in his footsteps. We know very litttle of Jesus though we do have some of the sayings that he left behind. Yeshua was no ordinary man, he was an eastern mystic, a spirit person, a healer and a teacher among other things. There was something obviously very profound about this man. We do not really know what happened at the Easter Experience but whatever it was was extremely powerful. It was powerful enough to turn his disciples who by then had run and hidden in mortal fear for their lives.
They had a profound experience that this Yeshua was still with them and the power that he seemed to wield. It was so profound they came out of their hiding places and began a very serious attempt in organizing the church and spreading his message.
As time went on the church developed rituals and traditions and those continued to develop. At one point or another the evangelists using history remembered and probably some collection of Yeshua's saying they produced the gospels.
This Yeshua was in fact such a profound figure that the early church came to believe as I do today that this risen lord was indeed in some profound way a continuation of the very human Jesus. He had obviously has a special relationship with God and this relationship convinced, along with their experiences of this Yeshua that He in fact was the long awaited Messiah.
Thus history remembered and the developing traditions gave us the Gospels and a more complete understanding of this Yeshua of Nazareth and the Risen Lord. Millions, including myself have felt the experiential reality of this risen Lord down through the centuries. I now consider myself but a humble servant of the Risen Lord.
In order to best read and understand the Sacred Scriptures it is a good idea to understand midrash and the extensive use of metaphor in the ancient writings. I hope this helps.
Shalom
Ted
:-6