26 replies to this topic

[Jinxdom]

Wearer of Hats, on 31 January 2013 - 07:53 AM, said:

Of course, he could be saying that the "eye for an eye" bit of the old law was a misinterpretation of what the Lord God actually told them.

It is. It's equal value for equal value. The getting punched part of turning the cheek bit was learning about consent. That is how you find equal value. Getting punched in the face isn't a normally considered good thing but it is ok if you agree to it. That isn't obvious to some people.

[sutemi]

Hi ya AC, I think you have touched on what many people feel. There were at one time, 20 gospels, 15 apocalypses and 50 other texts about Jesus. The Bible has just a few of these which were picked to go in, so we have a limited view of Jesus. But the biggest problems are mistranslation and manipulation of the texts. It has happened in all religions, when the teacher dies eventually a committee is formed to choose the teachings for the faithful. I have 5 version of the Tao te Ching everyone is different, the worst being by a Chinese professor of language. A translator is limited by the knowledge of the subject they are translating. I used to work for a French car manufacturer and the workshop manuals they sent to us, were in parts poorly translated into English by the French, causing many bouts of laughter in the workshop.  I have often wondered why people take the bible (or any other text) as the word of God for all these reasons also when people read it they understand in different ways, leading to many different sect within Christianity and they have often killed one another over their differing versions!

IMO one should read spiritual texts for inspiration only, what is better, is to try to experience the experience the teachers were talking about. I find inspiration in most religious texts, I have been practicing meditation for many years and I see this quest in nearly all of them. Why did Jesus go into the desert after his initiation by his teacher John the Baptist? To meditate, to confront the inner demon the mind, the thought maker, constantly judging and controlling. Why not try reading some of the Gnostic gospels although they suffer the same problems they offer another perspective which may broaden your outlook of Jesus’s time and meanings. There is documentary on utube called ‘the lost gospels’, it was made by an English priest, Peter Owen Jones, who approaches the subject with an open mind and is very interesting, I would have put a link but it would only be cut as it is by the BBC and copy righted, but you can view it yourself. If you like it, try some of his other documentaries like the ‘Extreme Pilgrim’, there are four.  I really like one where he goes to live in the desert on his own as the early Christian monks did copying Jesus, another where he becomes a Hindu Priest and  another where he joins a Buddhist Monastery. He is still a priest but also a member of the progressive Christian Association which is seems to be trying to bring all faiths together in Love and Friendship, so sadly lacking in this modern world. I highly recommend them. Take care.

[Paranoid Android]

sutemi, on 31 January 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

Hi ya AC, I think you have touched on what many people feel. There were at one time, 20 gospels, 15 apocalypses and 50 other texts about Jesus. The Bible has just a few of these which were picked to go in, so we have a limited view of Jesus.

Just curious, but of those 20 gospels, 14 apocalypses, and 50 other texts, how many of those chosen in the biblical canon can be reliably dated to the 1st Century Ad (and early 2nd Century).  For the most part, I think you'll find that texts date to 1st Century (at worst, some of them may be early or even mid-2nd Century).  Compare that to those texts left out, and how far away they are reliably dated... Just a thought

sutemi, on 31 January 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

But the biggest problems are mistranslation and manipulation of the texts.

Not sure what you mean by this.  Perhaps you can provide examples?  

[srd44]

Paranoid Android, on 31 January 2013 - 07:51 AM, said:

Jesus goes on to fulfil several other laws, giving spiritual meaning to physical laws.

Really? I'd have to disagree here. Where is spiritual coming into play? Certenly there is an intesification or going beyond the law (in fact Matthew's Jesus is one-uping the Pharasees), but there is nothing in the text to suggest Matthew is giving these a spiritual interpretation [I suspect your reading this through the lens of a later Christian tradition]. The example of adultery is one where the sin is moved from the act of adultery to the thought of it! It is internalized --- just to think it you have committed the sin.

Quote

Jesus rallied against such Pharisaic righteousness, teaching love rather than strict obedience to the rules (not even God's rules, the rules of the Pharisees that were added to God's Law).

Does this not contradict Jesus as fulfilling the laws? I think this is too much of a generalization, and again I would clarify, this is Matthew's Jesus. THe way Mark presents these same passages, the issue is not Sabbath, but authority.

Quote

Do you notice what these four left out have in common and how they differ from the other six? These commandments deal with how people are to relate to God, whereas the other six deal with how people are to relate to each other. So Jesus quoted only those commandments related to people...

Nice point. Matthew's Jesus focuses in on the ethical legislation. I like it. This goes along with Matthew's (notice I'm not saying Jesus') purpose.

[Eldorado]

Maybe Jesus was just a nice guy who spoke too loudly so they done him in.  As is the habit of the rich and powerful.

[AquilaChrysaetos]

sutemi, on 31 January 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

There were at one time, 20 gospels, 15 apocalypses and 50 other texts about Jesus.

There may have well been more than that that we simply haven't discovered.

[Paranoid Android]

srd44, on 31 January 2013 - 09:04 PM, said:

Really? I'd have to disagree here. Where is spiritual coming into play? Certenly there is an intesification or going beyond the law (in fact Matthew's Jesus is one-uping the Pharasees), but there is nothing in the text to suggest Matthew is giving these a spiritual interpretation [I suspect your reading this through the lens of a later Christian tradition]. The example of adultery is one where the sin is moved from the act of adultery to the thought of it! It is internalized --- just to think it you have committed the sin.

What I mean by "spiritual" is that the law is broadened in meaning to be not just an action in the body but a thought in the mind.  Perhaps "spiritual" was an ambiguous way of referring to it, but I couldn't think of a better way.  Perhaps some examples may clarify what I mean:

* Law - do not murder.  Fulfilled - Do not be angry with someone, that commits murder in the heart
* Law - Do not commit adultery.  Fulfilled - Do not lust, that commits adultery in the heart
* Law - Do not eat unclean foods (Leviticus 11).  Fulfilled - watch your words, for what comes out of your mouth is what makes you unclean (Mark 7).
* Law - set aside a day to devote to God (Sabbath, 4th Commandment).  Fulfilled - by dwelling on Jesus we constantly live in a Sabbath rest with God (Hebrews 4).

Each of these were originally physical laws.  They dealt with action.  Now through Jesus they are given a deeper meaning, not just a physical action.

srd44, on 31 January 2013 - 09:04 PM, said:

Does this not contradict Jesus as fulfilling the laws? I think this is too much of a generalization, and again I would clarify, this is Matthew's Jesus. THe way Mark presents these same passages, the issue is not Sabbath, but authority.

How does Jesus not obeying Pharisaic law contradict Jesus fulfilling God's law?

[Eldorado]

It's all hearsay.

[sutemi]

Paranoid Android, on 31 January 2013 - 05:29 PM, said:

Just curious, but of those 20 gospels, 14 apocalypses, and 50 other texts, how many of those chosen in the biblical canon can be reliably dated to the 1st Century Ad (and early 2nd Century).  For the most part, I think you'll find that texts date to 1st Century (at worst, some of them may be early or even mid-2nd Century).  Compare that to those texts left out, and how far away they are reliably dated... Just a thought [/color][/size][/font]


Not sure what you mean by this.  Perhaps you can provide examples?   [/color][/size][/font]

Hi PA,  There is a lot of debate about the possible age and authenticity  of different texts from the early centuries after Jesus, some of those mentioned in the documentary ‘ Lost Gospels’ have been dated to as late as the 4 century. The dating of these texts will always be debatable.  For one Jesus didn’t write any of them. The original texts must have been hand written from an oral tradition as most could not read, also any original texts that were worn/damaged after many years would have had to have been copied on to new material (velum/papyri/ etc. ) so checking the age of the materials doesn’t really prove when first written and also language changes and the difficulty of translating from one language (mainly Greek) to another is often difficult, not only because word for word translation but also style. So we cannot be sure of the age of most if not all of them. Also a lot of these texts were around at the council of Nicea. The ones like the Gnostic Gospels were not included in fact these texts of the ‘Christian Heretics’ were in fact hunted down to be destroyed, a probable reason for them being hidden.  So I don’t trust dating.

Manipulation and mistranslation? Well we could argue about the meaning of the greek words like soul (see Thales meaning) or Devil or diablo/ trickster but let’s leave that for the bible bashing threads which I don’t like, I try to respect all religions, I look for the similarities not the differences although fundamentalists of any type scare me. There are problems, there must be for 1000s different sects yet they are all reading the same book. I just wish that the various religions could come together and realise they all talking about the same God. For me it is about a personal inner experience. I gain that experience from Meditation, silent reflection on the Peace we all have within.  Then when I have that, all the various religious texts come to life, Tao te Ching, the Upanishads, the Vedas, the Gita, the Guru Granth sahib, Rumi’s poems, Kabir’s poems, so, so many great teachers of Love,  all talking about the same thing. This may not be how you see it, that’s fine by me, I find the different perspectives inspiring. For some the texts left are enough but for some they are not.

My position is summed up rather well by the founder of Aikido in his beautiful book the ’Art of Peace’. “Each and every master, regardless of the era or place, heard the call and attained harmony with heaven and earth. There are many paths to the top of Mount Fuji but there is only one summit – Love”  Morehi Ueshiba

[libstaK]

Wearer of Hats, on 31 January 2013 - 07:53 AM, said:

Of course, he could be saying that the "eye for an eye" bit of the old law was a misinterpretation of what the Lord God actually told them.

I think it is the most misinterpreted quote of the bible by far.  What I personally believe is that people who use this quote to justify their treatment of others have completely missed the point - it is not directed at "others" it is directed at how we behave TOWARD others.  The LAW which will be fulfilled will ensure that we are treated as we have treated others, NOT that others will be treated as they have treated us - that seems a contradiction, I know but I think it is a profound thing to comprehend.

[Mr Walker]

My reading of it is this, taken from the ongoing context of christ's teachings on this. Jesus said he did not come to do away with the law but to fulfil it. Or,  he came as man, as fulfilment of the law.

He also said that, he who even thinks a sin in his mind commits that sin as much as anyone who physically commits it. But, to take the sting from this, he pointed out that the laws were made for man from love and that, while they had to be obeyed, they should be obeyed from love not legalism or fear.

In other words god gave us the laws out of his love, to show us right from wrong and to keep us from harming ourselves and others. Christ said that is how we should apply and obey the laws. For example, if we can help a person on the sabbath, then love comes first, before the legal interpretation of doing nothing wordly on the sabbath.

This is the message of all christ's teachings. The law comes from love and must be intepreted and obeyed out of love. If we love god, we will desire to obey his laws.  But love comes before the law, and the laws were made for man. Man was not created to fit the laws. So, if obeying a law does harm to one we love (or to any human being) then we must weigh our actions, and act from love not legalism.Thus a nurse or a doctor can help people  on the sabbath without breaking the sabbath laws, and so can anyone else put in a similar situation.

On the other hand we obey the laws in our hearts our minds and in practice, UNTIL they hurt another, or ourselves, because generally, the laws show us the way to the safest forms of conduct.

[Ciss]

AquilaChrysaetos, on 31 January 2013 - 04:42 AM, said:

Well that's just my problem is that Jesus has different depictions in the four gospels themselves. Kinda makes it difficult for a believer to know exactly what to believe...

Sometimes I think the bible was not meant to teach one "what to believe" but rather to reveal "what one does believe"
When I ask myself why I am so drawn to this book and the stories in it the only answer I can come up with is that it does not guide me or force me into believing something, it shows me what I am already believing...it reveals my blindness to me.

For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

I like the "Matthew" version of the gospel, well truth is I like the whole book (bible) but Matthew hides great treasure in "plain statements" that are seemingly over looked by most, his verses contradict their self as that some will state TWO opposite things instead of conveying one message...

ex: For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Is there going to be great tribulation or not?

What does the book of Rev. say about a beast that was and is not....
The gospel of Matthew gives the reader an exercise in "reconciling all things" it is saying... It is not cherry picking one over the other it is reconciling all things...

"On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

All the law and the prophets < not just the law, but the prophets also

For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.