William Ess wrote: On the one hand you complain that the Bible is too complex yet on the other you say that the ten commandments are too simplistic. It makes it difficult to know where a happy medium would lie.
The injunction against images simply warns against worshiping a false entity which can harm relations with others. For example, neglect of friends or family through ambition, money, etc.
Advising other to be honest to themselves has its pitfalls. Hitler, for example, was honest with himself.
Where is the evil in good? What is meant by this?
The Bible is complex by your definition not mine..You said it requires smoothing out by a practiced mind. I don't find it all that complex becuase I don't try to smooth it out so that it is relavent to me..It is simply one of numerous works of ancient mythology created by old societies to explain their world.
Well if Hitler was honest with himslef I guess he understood why he did what he did. My advice to my children makes no recommendation to them on what the morality of their actions will be only that they ask themsleves honestly why they are doing something and then get on with it. I do not judge Hitler one way or the other although his actions were very harmful to the millions of people it is still not my place to judge him. Since we are the topic of Hitler I understand he was loving and kind to his German Shepard that was certainly good. I don't claim it offsets in anyway the damage done during World War 2.
Old and New
Old and New
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Old and New
Bryn Mawr wrote: No. This is meaningless to me.
I understand the premise that the Old Testament prophecied the coming of the Messiah. I find the link tenuous and of little relevance to the teachings of Jesus - something that was used by the Disciples rather than something that was claimed by Jesus.
Apart from that one instance of Jesus reading a set text from the Old Testament that you have now quoted twice, does Jesus anywhere, in his own words, claim to be the subject of the Old Testament prophacies?
If the only other purpose of the Old Testament is Jew bashing (holding them up as an example of a deadly sin) then count me out of it.
You can count me out as well. I don't understand your theology and, frankly, don't want to understand it. If referring to the sins of humanity, whether Jew or gentile, Hottentot or Hittite, is bashing - however you define it, then the only thing you have left for example is dumb animals.
The good, the bad, the ugly and beautiful in mankind is for example to all of us, Christ having done so HIMSELF. Eh?
I understand the premise that the Old Testament prophecied the coming of the Messiah. I find the link tenuous and of little relevance to the teachings of Jesus - something that was used by the Disciples rather than something that was claimed by Jesus.
Apart from that one instance of Jesus reading a set text from the Old Testament that you have now quoted twice, does Jesus anywhere, in his own words, claim to be the subject of the Old Testament prophacies?
If the only other purpose of the Old Testament is Jew bashing (holding them up as an example of a deadly sin) then count me out of it.
You can count me out as well. I don't understand your theology and, frankly, don't want to understand it. If referring to the sins of humanity, whether Jew or gentile, Hottentot or Hittite, is bashing - however you define it, then the only thing you have left for example is dumb animals.
The good, the bad, the ugly and beautiful in mankind is for example to all of us, Christ having done so HIMSELF. Eh?
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Old and New
zinkyusa wrote: The Bible is complex by your definition not mine..You said it requires smoothing out by a practiced mind. I don't find it all that complex becuase I don't try to smooth it out so that it is relavent to me..It is simply one of numerous works of ancient mythology created by old societies to explain their world.
Well if Hitler was honest with himslef I guess he understood why he did what he did. My advice to my children makes no recommendation to them on what the morality of their actions will be only that they ask themsleves honestly why they are doing something and then get on with it. I do not judge Hitler one way or the other although his actions were very harmful to the millions of people it is still not my place to judge him. Since we are the topic of Hitler I understand he was loving and kind to his German Shepard that was certainly good. I don't claim it offsets in anyway the damage done during World War 2.
I think the complexity of the bible was established in this debate before I joined the discussion.
If by other mythology your are referring to matter such as the Elder Edda or Mabinogion (etc), I don't think there is much dispute that these are of quite a different genre. It was never intended that they should be taken as a model for living.
Hitler for all his deeds made no bones about his aims. Indeed he publsihed them widely in hos book before standing for election. Rightly or wrongly, he believed that the world would be a better place without the Jews and believed in German expansion by aggression. He was probably the last successful politician to stick rigidly to his manifesto.
I don't know how loving or kind he was to his dog but I know he had it killed for no other reason than to test the efficacy of a particular type of poison.
Well if Hitler was honest with himslef I guess he understood why he did what he did. My advice to my children makes no recommendation to them on what the morality of their actions will be only that they ask themsleves honestly why they are doing something and then get on with it. I do not judge Hitler one way or the other although his actions were very harmful to the millions of people it is still not my place to judge him. Since we are the topic of Hitler I understand he was loving and kind to his German Shepard that was certainly good. I don't claim it offsets in anyway the damage done during World War 2.
I think the complexity of the bible was established in this debate before I joined the discussion.
If by other mythology your are referring to matter such as the Elder Edda or Mabinogion (etc), I don't think there is much dispute that these are of quite a different genre. It was never intended that they should be taken as a model for living.
Hitler for all his deeds made no bones about his aims. Indeed he publsihed them widely in hos book before standing for election. Rightly or wrongly, he believed that the world would be a better place without the Jews and believed in German expansion by aggression. He was probably the last successful politician to stick rigidly to his manifesto.
I don't know how loving or kind he was to his dog but I know he had it killed for no other reason than to test the efficacy of a particular type of poison.
Old and New
zinkyusa wrote: It's only complex because it's unclear, contradictory, chauvinistic, misogynistic, homophobic and scientifically and historically inaccurate. Of course it requires a "practiced" mind to "smooth" it out.
:yh_rotfl Not even "practiced" extremely well educated minds can "smooth" it out. I've listened to them and they argue more than the lay people.....only difference is that they argue with big words.
The bible is the most complicated piece of literature in the whole library and history of mankind. And to my way of thinking, it is disaster for lay people to be misinterpreting it.
I wish someone would find a way of bringing the bible to people in an easy to understand language. Actually, I have a childrens' bible that I read constantly when I was a kid. It is dog eared, no cover, bent and ripping in places and is by far the best bible I have ever read. Even a child can understand it, being written in easy English and very clear. To my knowledge, nothing is left out of it except the scary stuff, well not even that is left out but is presented in an understandable way.
:yh_rotfl Not even "practiced" extremely well educated minds can "smooth" it out. I've listened to them and they argue more than the lay people.....only difference is that they argue with big words.
The bible is the most complicated piece of literature in the whole library and history of mankind. And to my way of thinking, it is disaster for lay people to be misinterpreting it.
I wish someone would find a way of bringing the bible to people in an easy to understand language. Actually, I have a childrens' bible that I read constantly when I was a kid. It is dog eared, no cover, bent and ripping in places and is by far the best bible I have ever read. Even a child can understand it, being written in easy English and very clear. To my knowledge, nothing is left out of it except the scary stuff, well not even that is left out but is presented in an understandable way.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Old and New
weber wrote: :yh_rotfl Not even "practiced" extremely well educated minds can "smooth" it out. I've listened to them and they argue more than the lay people.....only difference is that they argue with big words.
The bible is the most complicated piece of literature in the whole library and history of mankind. And to my way of thinking, it is disaster for lay people to be misinterpreting it.
I wish someone would find a way of bringing the bible to people in an easy to understand language. Actually, I have a childrens' bible that I read constantly when I was a kid. It is dog eared, no cover, bent and ripping in places and is by far the best bible I have ever read. Even a child can understand it, being written in easy English and very clear. To my knowledge, nothing is left out of it except the scary stuff, well not even that is left out but is presented in an understandable way.
My answer is this question is that we have to improve ourselves in order to comprehend matters of complexity. It is not a weakness of the Bible that it is complicated; it is a weakness in ourselves if we unable to master the intricacies. It is, for example, exactly the same with music or literature. We accept at face value that Richard Wagner (for instance) wrote music of almost unimaginable power and beauty but it takes a great deal of hard work before one can understand it. Similarly with Shakespeare: you can write Caesar out in comic strip form, but 99% of the dramatic quality will be lost in the process.
This is why popular music (sic) is so popular - it requires no effort on the part of the listener.
The bible is the most complicated piece of literature in the whole library and history of mankind. And to my way of thinking, it is disaster for lay people to be misinterpreting it.
I wish someone would find a way of bringing the bible to people in an easy to understand language. Actually, I have a childrens' bible that I read constantly when I was a kid. It is dog eared, no cover, bent and ripping in places and is by far the best bible I have ever read. Even a child can understand it, being written in easy English and very clear. To my knowledge, nothing is left out of it except the scary stuff, well not even that is left out but is presented in an understandable way.
My answer is this question is that we have to improve ourselves in order to comprehend matters of complexity. It is not a weakness of the Bible that it is complicated; it is a weakness in ourselves if we unable to master the intricacies. It is, for example, exactly the same with music or literature. We accept at face value that Richard Wagner (for instance) wrote music of almost unimaginable power and beauty but it takes a great deal of hard work before one can understand it. Similarly with Shakespeare: you can write Caesar out in comic strip form, but 99% of the dramatic quality will be lost in the process.
This is why popular music (sic) is so popular - it requires no effort on the part of the listener.
Old and New
William Ess wrote: My answer is this question is that we have to improve ourselves in order to comprehend matters of complexity. It is not a weakness of the Bible that it is complicated; it is a weakness in ourselves if we unable to master the intricacies. It is, for example, exactly the same with music or literature. We accept at face value that Richard Wagner (for instance) wrote music of almost unimaginable power and beauty but it takes a great deal of hard work before one can understand it. Similarly with Shakespeare: you can write Caesar out in comic strip form, but 99% of the dramatic quality will be lost in the process.
This is why popular music (sic) is so popular - it requires no effort on the part of the listener.
Very interesting William
Music is good to start with. I love music. Wagner's music comes from inside of him and not one person can fully or even half understand his music, or Chopin's, or Bach, because it is a personal thing originating from their experiences and makeup. I play and I know where my music comes from and no one would ever be able to know the where or why or how. And so it is with the bible. It is not anything like one and one makes two. Music and the bible, one and one can make three or one and a half. Even great maestros can do little more than copy what they see and put their own stuff into it,.
Many people think they understand the bible. Each one of those many people has a different view. I've listened to them. Great maestro's can play the music with their own inflections and each is also different.
But then, that is just my opinion. If somebody ever gave me something better to work with, I would try.
This is why popular music (sic) is so popular - it requires no effort on the part of the listener.
Very interesting William
Music is good to start with. I love music. Wagner's music comes from inside of him and not one person can fully or even half understand his music, or Chopin's, or Bach, because it is a personal thing originating from their experiences and makeup. I play and I know where my music comes from and no one would ever be able to know the where or why or how. And so it is with the bible. It is not anything like one and one makes two. Music and the bible, one and one can make three or one and a half. Even great maestros can do little more than copy what they see and put their own stuff into it,.
Many people think they understand the bible. Each one of those many people has a different view. I've listened to them. Great maestro's can play the music with their own inflections and each is also different.
But then, that is just my opinion. If somebody ever gave me something better to work with, I would try.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Old and New
weber wrote: Very interesting William
Wagner's music comes from inside of him and not one person can fully or even half understand his music, or Chopin's, or Bach, .
Oh, I wouldn't say that. I think with an effort you can put yourself in the shoes of the Master but it takes years of work. When I remember how many years I had to slog in order to get an understanding of Parsifal.................
Talking of Parsifal, is it not strange how a man who probably never set foot in a church, should produce such an inspired religious work - and one that took about eighty years to be understood?
What the influence that an appreciation of Wagner can have - Hitler (him again) always maintained that it was a performance of Meistersinger in 1922 that inspired him to rise in politics.
Wagner's music comes from inside of him and not one person can fully or even half understand his music, or Chopin's, or Bach, .
Oh, I wouldn't say that. I think with an effort you can put yourself in the shoes of the Master but it takes years of work. When I remember how many years I had to slog in order to get an understanding of Parsifal.................
Talking of Parsifal, is it not strange how a man who probably never set foot in a church, should produce such an inspired religious work - and one that took about eighty years to be understood?
What the influence that an appreciation of Wagner can have - Hitler (him again) always maintained that it was a performance of Meistersinger in 1922 that inspired him to rise in politics.
Old and New
William Ess wrote: Talking of Parsifal, is it not strange how a man who probably never set foot in a church, should produce such an inspired religious work - and one that took about eighty years to be understood?
.
I don't know this guy and I don't usually gauge the greatness of a work of art by how long it takes to understand it. Probably the other way around. If it took 80 years to understand it, how much of everybody else is in the translation to understanding. I think that the ability to speak clearly is a true sign of a great orator or writer or whatever. I don't know who veiled works of art are for but obviously not the general lay public.
And a person need not go to church to be religious.
.
I don't know this guy and I don't usually gauge the greatness of a work of art by how long it takes to understand it. Probably the other way around. If it took 80 years to understand it, how much of everybody else is in the translation to understanding. I think that the ability to speak clearly is a true sign of a great orator or writer or whatever. I don't know who veiled works of art are for but obviously not the general lay public.
And a person need not go to church to be religious.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Old and New
William Ess wrote: My answer is this question is that we have to improve ourselves in order to comprehend matters of complexity. It is not a weakness of the Bible that it is complicated; it is a weakness in ourselves if we unable to master the intricacies. It is, for example, exactly the same with music or literature. We accept at face value that Richard Wagner (for instance) wrote music of almost unimaginable power and beauty but it takes a great deal of hard work before one can understand it. Similarly with Shakespeare: you can write Caesar out in comic strip form, but 99% of the dramatic quality will be lost in the process.
This is why popular music (sic) is so popular - it requires no effort on the part of the listener.
William
That is fine for you to say because you have a mind that wishes to study and study and on and on until you understand. And that is wonderful.
How many people in this world of ours do you think have that capacity to study that you do. I don't and I am quite well educated, with a college education and an inquisitive mind. I would guess there are many, many people without a college education, without an inquisitive mined, just regular, nice, good people who would understand the bible as little as I do(Old Testament in mind). Do you think that they are going to do what you do to understand the bible? No they aren't. They are going to read it and misunderstand and in the process possibly hurting others with misinformation.
I say fine. You study the Old Testament. I don't have the desire to pore over it for hours, days, weeks, months, years to understand one paragraph.
You can improve yourself but what about the rest of the people. We are not all built of the same stuff. We each have our calling and it is different for each. Perhaps you are called to slave over the Old Testament. I am not.
Popular music is easy. Great........the bible is hard, you might have the following but not the understanding.
This is why popular music (sic) is so popular - it requires no effort on the part of the listener.
William
That is fine for you to say because you have a mind that wishes to study and study and on and on until you understand. And that is wonderful.
How many people in this world of ours do you think have that capacity to study that you do. I don't and I am quite well educated, with a college education and an inquisitive mind. I would guess there are many, many people without a college education, without an inquisitive mined, just regular, nice, good people who would understand the bible as little as I do(Old Testament in mind). Do you think that they are going to do what you do to understand the bible? No they aren't. They are going to read it and misunderstand and in the process possibly hurting others with misinformation.
I say fine. You study the Old Testament. I don't have the desire to pore over it for hours, days, weeks, months, years to understand one paragraph.
You can improve yourself but what about the rest of the people. We are not all built of the same stuff. We each have our calling and it is different for each. Perhaps you are called to slave over the Old Testament. I am not.
Popular music is easy. Great........the bible is hard, you might have the following but not the understanding.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Old and New
William Ess wrote:
Not the least of the remarkable qualities of the Bible is that it has no rival. However, there is no need to be burdened with its more erudite ingredients: the ten commandments will provide all that is needed to get the purpose of the work.
I'm confused here - how do you get either of there points?
Are you suggesting that no other religion has its holy book?
Are you suggesting that the teachings of Jesus count for naught?
Not the least of the remarkable qualities of the Bible is that it has no rival. However, there is no need to be burdened with its more erudite ingredients: the ten commandments will provide all that is needed to get the purpose of the work.
I'm confused here - how do you get either of there points?
Are you suggesting that no other religion has its holy book?
Are you suggesting that the teachings of Jesus count for naught?
Old and New
Atsila wrote: You can count me out as well. I don't understand your theology and, frankly, don't want to understand it. If referring to the sins of humanity, whether Jew or gentile, Hottentot or Hittite, is bashing - however you define it, then the only thing you have left for example is dumb animals.
The good, the bad, the ugly and beautiful in mankind is for example to all of us, Christ having done so HIMSELF. Eh?
I am only trying to understand what you are saying, the first obsticle is your reference to a type of Christ :-
Atsila wrote: Do you understand the meaning of type of Christ, the Lamb that was slain from the foundations of the world? HE is in every innocent animal slain for sin in the OT. Once HE died on the cross, that system became void. Type met anti-Type
To me Jesus Christ was a person, the Son of God, and I do not see how you can have types of a single person. I did not understand your explanation and asked for clarification.
As for the other, you were specific that it was the Jewish people :-
Atsila wrote: The other theme running through the OT is the rise and fall of the Jewish people and the example they serve to this day. Syncretism is deadly
and your quote appears to say that they are an example of a deadly sin. Have I misunderstood?
The good, the bad, the ugly and beautiful in mankind is for example to all of us, Christ having done so HIMSELF. Eh?
I am only trying to understand what you are saying, the first obsticle is your reference to a type of Christ :-
Atsila wrote: Do you understand the meaning of type of Christ, the Lamb that was slain from the foundations of the world? HE is in every innocent animal slain for sin in the OT. Once HE died on the cross, that system became void. Type met anti-Type
To me Jesus Christ was a person, the Son of God, and I do not see how you can have types of a single person. I did not understand your explanation and asked for clarification.
As for the other, you were specific that it was the Jewish people :-
Atsila wrote: The other theme running through the OT is the rise and fall of the Jewish people and the example they serve to this day. Syncretism is deadly
and your quote appears to say that they are an example of a deadly sin. Have I misunderstood?
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Old and New
weber wrote: I don't know this guy and I don't usually gauge the greatness of a work of art by how long it takes to understand it. Probably the other way around. If it took 80 years to understand it, how much of everybody else is in the translation to understanding. I think that the ability to speak clearly is a true sign of a great orator or writer or whatever. I don't know who veiled works of art are for but obviously not the general lay public.
Greatness - and I use the term in its narrowest sense - is the product of genius and therefore by someone who was several hundred years ahead of his contemporaries in terms of mental capacity. It therefore follows that it takes a considerable effort by conventional minds to grasp which is being said. You listen, not with the ears, but the intellect.
Greatness - and I use the term in its narrowest sense - is the product of genius and therefore by someone who was several hundred years ahead of his contemporaries in terms of mental capacity. It therefore follows that it takes a considerable effort by conventional minds to grasp which is being said. You listen, not with the ears, but the intellect.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Old and New
weber wrote: William
That is fine for you to say because you have a mind that wishes to study and study and on and on until you understand. And that is wonderful.
How many people in this world of ours do you think have that capacity to study that you do. I don't and I am quite well educated, with a college education and an inquisitive mind. I would guess there are many, many people without a college education, without an inquisitive mined, just regular, nice, good people who would understand the bible as little as I do(Old Testament in mind). Do you think that they are going to do what you do to understand the bible? No they aren't. They are going to read it and misunderstand and in the process possibly hurting others with misinformation.
I say fine. You study the Old Testament. I don't have the desire to pore over it for hours, days, weeks, months, years to understand one paragraph.
You can improve yourself but what about the rest of the people. We are not all built of the same stuff. We each have our calling and it is different for each. Perhaps you are called to slave over the Old Testament. I am not.
Popular music is easy. Great........the bible is hard, you might have the following but not the understanding.
I am afraid you overestimate me! My intellect is not especially sharp and certainly no better than anyone elses; if there is a difference it is due to an upbringing where we were trained to deduce facts from evidence and to mistrust first conclusions.
I don't think any of us are called in any particular way to study the Bible (although some may find it easier than others): it is there for all to read and understand. One is unlikely to derive much more than a transient benefit without some effort of thought. However, intellect (along with table manners!) is one of the things than distinguishes us from animals.
That is fine for you to say because you have a mind that wishes to study and study and on and on until you understand. And that is wonderful.
How many people in this world of ours do you think have that capacity to study that you do. I don't and I am quite well educated, with a college education and an inquisitive mind. I would guess there are many, many people without a college education, without an inquisitive mined, just regular, nice, good people who would understand the bible as little as I do(Old Testament in mind). Do you think that they are going to do what you do to understand the bible? No they aren't. They are going to read it and misunderstand and in the process possibly hurting others with misinformation.
I say fine. You study the Old Testament. I don't have the desire to pore over it for hours, days, weeks, months, years to understand one paragraph.
You can improve yourself but what about the rest of the people. We are not all built of the same stuff. We each have our calling and it is different for each. Perhaps you are called to slave over the Old Testament. I am not.
Popular music is easy. Great........the bible is hard, you might have the following but not the understanding.
I am afraid you overestimate me! My intellect is not especially sharp and certainly no better than anyone elses; if there is a difference it is due to an upbringing where we were trained to deduce facts from evidence and to mistrust first conclusions.
I don't think any of us are called in any particular way to study the Bible (although some may find it easier than others): it is there for all to read and understand. One is unlikely to derive much more than a transient benefit without some effort of thought. However, intellect (along with table manners!) is one of the things than distinguishes us from animals.
Old and New
Bryn Mawr wrote: I am only trying to understand what you are saying, the first obsticle is your reference to a type of Christ :-
To me Jesus Christ was a person, the Son of God, and I do not see how you can have types of a single person. I did not understand your explanation and asked for clarification.
As for the other, you were specific that it was the Jewish people :-
and your quote appears to say that they are an example of a deadly sin. Have I misunderstood?
The animals used for sacrifice, spotless and innocent, are a type of Christ, or a representative. Do some research on type of Christ and how HE is the antitype.
The Jews are the primary example of right and wrong in scripture. Chosen by God to be HIS messengers, they failed miserably. True or not? Example or not?
I can't very well say it was the Pygmies or French-speaking Canadians, etc., they are not examples in the Bible. Neither are the pagan nations in it, since they did not profess Jehovah God to begin with, but they are an example of how God deals/will deal with paganism.
As for your comment about 'deadly sin'? I view all sin as deadly and all sin separates us from God.
Another word for type would be model, I've already said representative. The antitype would be the real thing.
Do a bit of research. If I can help with answering questions, please let me know. Nevim, being a Messianic Jew, also can answer.
Good blessings to you. May the Holy Spirit guide you into all understanding. :-6
To me Jesus Christ was a person, the Son of God, and I do not see how you can have types of a single person. I did not understand your explanation and asked for clarification.
As for the other, you were specific that it was the Jewish people :-
and your quote appears to say that they are an example of a deadly sin. Have I misunderstood?
The animals used for sacrifice, spotless and innocent, are a type of Christ, or a representative. Do some research on type of Christ and how HE is the antitype.
The Jews are the primary example of right and wrong in scripture. Chosen by God to be HIS messengers, they failed miserably. True or not? Example or not?
I can't very well say it was the Pygmies or French-speaking Canadians, etc., they are not examples in the Bible. Neither are the pagan nations in it, since they did not profess Jehovah God to begin with, but they are an example of how God deals/will deal with paganism.
As for your comment about 'deadly sin'? I view all sin as deadly and all sin separates us from God.
Another word for type would be model, I've already said representative. The antitype would be the real thing.
Do a bit of research. If I can help with answering questions, please let me know. Nevim, being a Messianic Jew, also can answer.
Good blessings to you. May the Holy Spirit guide you into all understanding. :-6
Old and New
William Ess wrote: Greatness - and I use the term in its narrowest sense - is the product of genius and therefore by someone who was several hundred years ahead of his contemporaries in terms of mental capacity. It therefore follows that it takes a considerable effort by conventional minds to grasp which is being said. You listen, not with the ears, but the intellect.
There ya go William
We even differ in our description of genius, greatness. So then how much more differing is there in lay people reading the bible which geniuses have studied for years and still (decades) can't agree as to the meaning.. And the genius people who study and grasp some understanding of the bible, they don't have the ability to use lay language to get the message across to lay people.
You see, there is no purpose to this conversation because lay people are reading the Old Testament and misinterpreting and there really is no answer. This conversation came about because I said that the Old Testament should be left to the experts. You haven't convinced me otherwise and people will continue to read the Old Testament and misintepret. It isn't going to change so we really have quite nothing to talk about.
There ya go William
We even differ in our description of genius, greatness. So then how much more differing is there in lay people reading the bible which geniuses have studied for years and still (decades) can't agree as to the meaning.. And the genius people who study and grasp some understanding of the bible, they don't have the ability to use lay language to get the message across to lay people.
You see, there is no purpose to this conversation because lay people are reading the Old Testament and misinterpreting and there really is no answer. This conversation came about because I said that the Old Testament should be left to the experts. You haven't convinced me otherwise and people will continue to read the Old Testament and misintepret. It isn't going to change so we really have quite nothing to talk about.
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Old and New
William Ess wrote: I am afraid you overestimate me! My intellect is not especially sharp and certainly no better than anyone elses; if there is a difference it is due to an upbringing where we were trained to deduce facts from evidence and to mistrust first conclusions.
I don't think any of us are called in any particular way to study the Bible (although some may find it easier than others): it is there for all to read and understand. One is unlikely to derive much more than a transient benefit without some effort of thought. However, intellect (along with table manners!) is one of the things than distinguishes us from animals.
I agree, it IS for all to understand, and certainly no particular group is singled out to understand better or more.
The Bible tells you how to study it........precept on precept, line upon line, here a little there a little. This takes time, diligence, commitment.....PRAYER....and the wonderful influence of the Holy Spirit. As the Bereans did, searching to see if these things be so, so can we.........help one another........speak according to God's word and there is light in us.
Speaking according to God's word is imperative. How quickly deviations become established and are called 'truth', is apparent.
I don't think any of us are called in any particular way to study the Bible (although some may find it easier than others): it is there for all to read and understand. One is unlikely to derive much more than a transient benefit without some effort of thought. However, intellect (along with table manners!) is one of the things than distinguishes us from animals.
I agree, it IS for all to understand, and certainly no particular group is singled out to understand better or more.
The Bible tells you how to study it........precept on precept, line upon line, here a little there a little. This takes time, diligence, commitment.....PRAYER....and the wonderful influence of the Holy Spirit. As the Bereans did, searching to see if these things be so, so can we.........help one another........speak according to God's word and there is light in us.
Speaking according to God's word is imperative. How quickly deviations become established and are called 'truth', is apparent.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Old and New
weber wrote: There ya go William
We even differ in our description of genius, greatness. So then how much more differing is there in lay people reading the bible which geniuses have studied for years and still (decades) can't agree as to the meaning.. And the genius people who study and grasp some understanding of the bible, they don't have the ability to use lay language to get the message across to lay people.
You see, there is no purpose to this conversation because lay people are reading the Old Testament and misinterpreting and there really is no answer. This conversation came about because I said that the Old Testament should be left to the experts. You haven't convinced me otherwise and people will continue to read the Old Testament and misintepret. It isn't going to change so we really have quite nothing to talk about.
I am not so sure that we differ greatly in our capacity to understand difficult concepts; some people have the ability to grasp things more quickly than others but I think the potential for intellectual expansion lies with us all.
Anyone, with practice, can look at evidence and draw the rght conclusions although it should not be confused with talent. I can, for example, understand a piano concerto with great clarity but if I had to play it, I should be a complete failure however long I tried. Talent and intellect should not be confused!
The reason I say that the Bible - at least the greater part of it - should be left to the experts is simply because so many of the inexpert draw the wrong conclusions from only a fraction of the evidence. That is why I suggested sticking to the ten commandments (plus, of course) the two additional commandments.
We even differ in our description of genius, greatness. So then how much more differing is there in lay people reading the bible which geniuses have studied for years and still (decades) can't agree as to the meaning.. And the genius people who study and grasp some understanding of the bible, they don't have the ability to use lay language to get the message across to lay people.
You see, there is no purpose to this conversation because lay people are reading the Old Testament and misinterpreting and there really is no answer. This conversation came about because I said that the Old Testament should be left to the experts. You haven't convinced me otherwise and people will continue to read the Old Testament and misintepret. It isn't going to change so we really have quite nothing to talk about.
I am not so sure that we differ greatly in our capacity to understand difficult concepts; some people have the ability to grasp things more quickly than others but I think the potential for intellectual expansion lies with us all.
Anyone, with practice, can look at evidence and draw the rght conclusions although it should not be confused with talent. I can, for example, understand a piano concerto with great clarity but if I had to play it, I should be a complete failure however long I tried. Talent and intellect should not be confused!
The reason I say that the Bible - at least the greater part of it - should be left to the experts is simply because so many of the inexpert draw the wrong conclusions from only a fraction of the evidence. That is why I suggested sticking to the ten commandments (plus, of course) the two additional commandments.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Old and New
weber wrote: There ya go William
there is no purpose to this conversation .
I believe there is always purpose to conversation provided it is conducted in sensible terms.
there is no purpose to this conversation .
I believe there is always purpose to conversation provided it is conducted in sensible terms.
Old and New
weber wrote: There ya go William
We even differ in our description of genius, greatness. So then how much more differing is there in lay people reading the bible which geniuses have studied for years and still (decades) can't agree as to the meaning.. And the genius people who study and grasp some understanding of the bible, they don't have the ability to use lay language to get the message across to lay people.
You see, there is no purpose to this conversation because lay people are reading the Old Testament and misinterpreting and there really is no answer. This conversation came about because I said that the Old Testament should be left to the experts. You haven't convinced me otherwise and people will continue to read the Old Testament and misintepret. It isn't going to change so we really have quite nothing to talk about.
I love the OT! From the verse that prophesies the Messiah, to Malachi and a near exhaustion of methods to turn the recalcitrant children of Israel.
What gets in the way of Bible study is preconceived ideas furthered by established isms. Lay them aside, and a clear picture emerges and the shattering simplicity of it all.
Here's the warning when isms get in the way.
2Ti 3:7
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
How many of us study and study .......... never understanding what is studied? Because we are taught to read into scripture, rather than out of it to accommodate our affiliations.
We even differ in our description of genius, greatness. So then how much more differing is there in lay people reading the bible which geniuses have studied for years and still (decades) can't agree as to the meaning.. And the genius people who study and grasp some understanding of the bible, they don't have the ability to use lay language to get the message across to lay people.
You see, there is no purpose to this conversation because lay people are reading the Old Testament and misinterpreting and there really is no answer. This conversation came about because I said that the Old Testament should be left to the experts. You haven't convinced me otherwise and people will continue to read the Old Testament and misintepret. It isn't going to change so we really have quite nothing to talk about.
I love the OT! From the verse that prophesies the Messiah, to Malachi and a near exhaustion of methods to turn the recalcitrant children of Israel.
What gets in the way of Bible study is preconceived ideas furthered by established isms. Lay them aside, and a clear picture emerges and the shattering simplicity of it all.
Here's the warning when isms get in the way.
2Ti 3:7
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
How many of us study and study .......... never understanding what is studied? Because we are taught to read into scripture, rather than out of it to accommodate our affiliations.
Old and New
A few comments.
Scholarly research has come to the conclusion based on the evidence that Jesus himself never claimed to be the Messiah though most believe that he was.
The good old 10 Cs were borrowed from the Babylonians and altered to fit the Hebrew situation. Of course the parable of the meeting on the mountain between Moses and God was written to assert that these laws were approved by God. As far as them being absolute, I can't accept that. Morality can be and is relative. William does not see starvation as a reason for theft. If it is that theft that will keep your children and your wife alive I doubt very much that God will consider that a problem. After all Jesus broke all kinds of laws during his ministry. The only absolute is God (himself). That is in brackets because it is an anthopocentrism.
Graven images can and does also refer to writing. When we fall into the fundamentlaist/literalist trap we place ourselves in danger of idolatry. We begin to insist that all that is in the Bible is absolutely without error and true. Unfortunately that is not true. The danger is in placed the Bible on an equal footing with God. The phrase the "Word of God" does not belong to a book but to One who was the "word made flesh". The basis and centre of my faith is the risen Lord it is not a book which merely attests to the risen One.
Jesus, we believe is the Messiah. However, we must make a distinction between the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith. (Crossan, Borg, Gordon etc.) That being said we anthropomize the Divine because metaphor is the only language with which we can speak of the Divine. The Divine cannot be defined or described even close to adequately in human language.
The contradictions in the Bible I have dealt with in the appropriate thread.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Scholarly research has come to the conclusion based on the evidence that Jesus himself never claimed to be the Messiah though most believe that he was.
The good old 10 Cs were borrowed from the Babylonians and altered to fit the Hebrew situation. Of course the parable of the meeting on the mountain between Moses and God was written to assert that these laws were approved by God. As far as them being absolute, I can't accept that. Morality can be and is relative. William does not see starvation as a reason for theft. If it is that theft that will keep your children and your wife alive I doubt very much that God will consider that a problem. After all Jesus broke all kinds of laws during his ministry. The only absolute is God (himself). That is in brackets because it is an anthopocentrism.
Graven images can and does also refer to writing. When we fall into the fundamentlaist/literalist trap we place ourselves in danger of idolatry. We begin to insist that all that is in the Bible is absolutely without error and true. Unfortunately that is not true. The danger is in placed the Bible on an equal footing with God. The phrase the "Word of God" does not belong to a book but to One who was the "word made flesh". The basis and centre of my faith is the risen Lord it is not a book which merely attests to the risen One.
Jesus, we believe is the Messiah. However, we must make a distinction between the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith. (Crossan, Borg, Gordon etc.) That being said we anthropomize the Divine because metaphor is the only language with which we can speak of the Divine. The Divine cannot be defined or described even close to adequately in human language.
The contradictions in the Bible I have dealt with in the appropriate thread.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Old and New
Ted wrote: A few comments.
Of course the parable of the meeting on the mountain between Moses and God was written to assert that these laws were approved by God. As far as them being absolute, I can't accept that. Morality can be and is relative. William does not see starvation as a reason for theft. If it is that theft that will keep your children and your wife alive I doubt very much that God will consider that a problem. After all Jesus broke all kinds of laws during his ministry. The only absolute is God (himself). Shalom
Ted:-6
This is dangerous stuff! If morality is relative, what is it relative to? Whe does morality differ from honesty. Starvation may mitigate the crime of theft but it does not excuse it. What about scale? If it is excusable for a starving individual to rob a baker, would it be permissable for a nation whose population is at starvation level to invade a neighbouring but properous country. How much force may the starving man use if detectedn in the act of theft? And so on.
I am afraid that as soon as you start to loosen the bonds of morality, leaks spring up all over the place.
To infer that Christ was a criminal is misleading in the extreme. He certainly trampled on a few corns in respect of religious law (although since he was the son of God, his actions may be presumed reasonable!) but I cannot recall an instance of his breaking the criminal code. Even Pilate had difficulty in finding a case for him to answer.
Of course the parable of the meeting on the mountain between Moses and God was written to assert that these laws were approved by God. As far as them being absolute, I can't accept that. Morality can be and is relative. William does not see starvation as a reason for theft. If it is that theft that will keep your children and your wife alive I doubt very much that God will consider that a problem. After all Jesus broke all kinds of laws during his ministry. The only absolute is God (himself). Shalom
Ted:-6
This is dangerous stuff! If morality is relative, what is it relative to? Whe does morality differ from honesty. Starvation may mitigate the crime of theft but it does not excuse it. What about scale? If it is excusable for a starving individual to rob a baker, would it be permissable for a nation whose population is at starvation level to invade a neighbouring but properous country. How much force may the starving man use if detectedn in the act of theft? And so on.
I am afraid that as soon as you start to loosen the bonds of morality, leaks spring up all over the place.
To infer that Christ was a criminal is misleading in the extreme. He certainly trampled on a few corns in respect of religious law (although since he was the son of God, his actions may be presumed reasonable!) but I cannot recall an instance of his breaking the criminal code. Even Pilate had difficulty in finding a case for him to answer.
Old and New
William:-6
If we look around the world we see many moral codes that have differences. M. Meed found tribes in the south seas that encouraged early sexual experience among their youth. They did not consider that immoral. It was part of their culture.
Some of the tribes in some of the islands like New Guinea ate their dead as well as their enemies in the belief that they would gain some of the good qualities of the dead person. That was not considered immoral. It was part of their culture.
If you look at the Jewish Encyclopedia
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... 5&letter=A
JewishEncyclopedia.com - ADULTERY
you will find a morality that no one today talks about. Back in the early days and long after the death of Jesus it was considered quite appropriate to have more then on wife, in fact many if you wanted. It was also considered quite appropriate for a man to have concubines. It was either David or Solomon, and I think Solomon, who had some 700 concubines. He sure was a busy man.
It was also considered quite appropriate for a man to have extramarital sex. He could have sex with another woman provided she was not married and she was not a virgin. It was cultural.
In Numbers 31 God apparently not only condoned but encouraged war crimes and genocide. The soldiers were allowed to keep the virgins for themselves as long as they shared some with the temple authorities. They sure understood soldiers back in those days. Nothing has changed. It was cultural.
I think that we have had a fundamental misunderstanding about what is wrong with this world and the nature of "sin". Moral codes have always been relative and cultural. Consider the temple prostitutes of Greece. I think that we must begin to view things in a different light. It something is life afirming then it is indeed approved by God. If it is life denying then it is a sin.
If we look at the Exodus story we have a God who said though shalt do no murder and then promptly revels in the death, by drowning, of several thousand Egyptian soldiers. Then you look at the related Passover story and you have a God who slays the innoenct children of the Egyptians. They were killed to deliver a message to the king! Innocent children! I hardly think so.
It is considered moral to kill in self defense. Yet Jesus himself refused to allow anyone to defend him with a sword. What does one do if he and his family are the prisoners of, say terrorists. He knows that his family is inevitably going to be tortured beyond anything that one can dream of. If he has a method to do them in painlessly to avoid the inevitable toture to death is it morally right to do so? That would indeed be a hard position to be in but I think that I would argue yes it is the right thing to do.
I will thus argue that morality is relative to time place and culture and the basis of that moraity is life affirming or life denying.
Shalom
Ted:-6
If we look around the world we see many moral codes that have differences. M. Meed found tribes in the south seas that encouraged early sexual experience among their youth. They did not consider that immoral. It was part of their culture.
Some of the tribes in some of the islands like New Guinea ate their dead as well as their enemies in the belief that they would gain some of the good qualities of the dead person. That was not considered immoral. It was part of their culture.
If you look at the Jewish Encyclopedia
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... 5&letter=A
JewishEncyclopedia.com - ADULTERY
you will find a morality that no one today talks about. Back in the early days and long after the death of Jesus it was considered quite appropriate to have more then on wife, in fact many if you wanted. It was also considered quite appropriate for a man to have concubines. It was either David or Solomon, and I think Solomon, who had some 700 concubines. He sure was a busy man.
It was also considered quite appropriate for a man to have extramarital sex. He could have sex with another woman provided she was not married and she was not a virgin. It was cultural.
In Numbers 31 God apparently not only condoned but encouraged war crimes and genocide. The soldiers were allowed to keep the virgins for themselves as long as they shared some with the temple authorities. They sure understood soldiers back in those days. Nothing has changed. It was cultural.
I think that we have had a fundamental misunderstanding about what is wrong with this world and the nature of "sin". Moral codes have always been relative and cultural. Consider the temple prostitutes of Greece. I think that we must begin to view things in a different light. It something is life afirming then it is indeed approved by God. If it is life denying then it is a sin.
If we look at the Exodus story we have a God who said though shalt do no murder and then promptly revels in the death, by drowning, of several thousand Egyptian soldiers. Then you look at the related Passover story and you have a God who slays the innoenct children of the Egyptians. They were killed to deliver a message to the king! Innocent children! I hardly think so.
It is considered moral to kill in self defense. Yet Jesus himself refused to allow anyone to defend him with a sword. What does one do if he and his family are the prisoners of, say terrorists. He knows that his family is inevitably going to be tortured beyond anything that one can dream of. If he has a method to do them in painlessly to avoid the inevitable toture to death is it morally right to do so? That would indeed be a hard position to be in but I think that I would argue yes it is the right thing to do.
I will thus argue that morality is relative to time place and culture and the basis of that moraity is life affirming or life denying.
Shalom
Ted:-6