Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Logical issues with belief.


danydandan

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

Btw, did anyone ever look into the conflict between Paul and James the Just, the first Bishop of Jerusalem.. and the ideological split it resulted in?

 

No...! I've never even heard of it...! A historian wrote of it? That would have been a very much earlier split than I ever imagined. Wow!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Jen5 said:

No...! I've never even heard of it...! A historian wrote of it? That would have been a very much earlier split than I ever imagined. Wow!

 

The testimony of the early Church confirms James the Just’s position and importance. Hegesippus, a second century Palestinian Christian, who traveled widely and carefully investigated the history of the preceding century, says:

"Control of the church passed [from Christ] to the apostles, together with James, whom everyone from the Lord’s time till our own has called the Righteous."

James is appropriately considered the first bishop of Jerusalem, the mother church. Clement of Alexandria (d. 210) states:

"After the ascension of the savior, Peter and James [the brother of the apostle John] and John did not struggle for glory, because they had previously been given honor by the Savior, but chose James the Just as bishop of Jerusalem."

This, this and this provides a pretty good summary of the ideological schism that ensued after Jesus' crucifixion, between the followers of James and those of the self proclaimed Apostle Paul.
 

Quote

Letter of Peter to James

For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my legal preaching, attaching themselves to certain lawless and trifling preaching of the man who is my enemy....to transform my words by certain various interpretations, in order to the dissolution of the law; as though I also myself were of such a mind, but did not freely proclaim it, which God forbid! For such a thing were to act in opposition to the law of God which was spoken by Moses...   (emphasis added)

Some scholars see this "enemy" as a reference to Paul; others see it as a reference to Simon Magus, the man Peter is indeed actively engaging in debate in the story. Those who see Paul as an "enemy" of Peter are drawing this conclusion from the characteristics listed above which does seem to point to the theological differences of Paul and James.


Fascinating subject matter, I find anyway..

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Epistle of Peter to James


Peter to James, the lord and bishop of the holy Church, under the Father of all, through Jesus Christ, wishes peace always.(1)

Chapter I.-Doctrine of Reserve.

Knowing, my brother, your eager desire after that which is for the advantage of us all, I beg and beseech you not to communicate to any one of the Gentiles the books of my preachings which I sent to you, nor to any one of our own tribe before trial; but if any one has been proved and found worthy, then to commit them to him, after the manner in which Moses delivered his books to the Seventy who succeeded to his chair. Wherefore also the fruit of that caution appears even till now. For his countrymen keep the same rule of monarchy and polity everywhere, being unable in any way to think otherwise, or to be led out of the way of the much-indicating Scriptures. For, according to the rule delivered to them, they endeavour to correct the discordances of the Scriptures, if any one, haply not knowing the traditions, is confounded at the various utterances of the prophets. Wherefore they charge no one to teach, unless he has first learned how the Scriptures must be used. And thus they have amongst them one God, one law, one hope.

Chapter II.-Misrepresentation of Peter's Doctrine.

In order, therefore, that the like may also happen to those among us as to these Seventy, give the books of my preachings to our brethren, with the like mystery of initiation, that they may indoctrinate those who wish to take part in teaching; for if it be not so done, our word of truth will be rent into many opinions. And this I know, not as being a prophet, but as already seeing the beginning of this very evil. For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my legal preaching, attaching themselves to certain lawless and trifling preaching of the man who is my enemy.(2) And these things some have attempted while I am still alive, to transform my words by certain various interpretations, in order to the dissolution of the law; as though I also myself were of such a mind, but did not freely proclaim it, which God forbid! For such a thing were to act in opposition to the law of God which was spoken by Moses, and was borne witness to by our Lord in respect of its eternal continuance; for thus he spoke: "The heavens and the earth shall pass away, but one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law."(3) And this He has said, that all things might come to pass. But these men, professing, I know not how, to know my mind, undertake to explain my words, which they have heard of me, more intelligently than I who spoke them, telling their catechumens that this is my meaning, which indeed I never thought of. But if, while I am still alive, they dare thus to misrepresent me, how much more will those who shall come after me dare to do so!

[..]

https://www.biblestudytools.com/history/early-church-fathers/ante-nicene/vol-8-third-fourth-centuries/pseudo-clementine-literature/epistle-of-peter-to-james.html


Thought I'd provide the whole epistle of Peter to James.. as it refers to one of many explicit statements of Christ which modern day Christianity just seems to simply circumvent, ignore, deny.. Just like all the instances where Christ explicitly states all his power is by leave of G*d Almighty, by whom he is sent (as a prophet); the absolute plethora of confirmations he is in fact inherently unequal to The Father. In such cases, it seems to me modern day, mainstream Christianity chooses to ignore such countless explicit statements, and cling to one or two implicit variants to 'prove their case', interpreting them as they desire.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This little shameful episode not only didn't help matters but perpetuated a millennia of abhorrent unspeakable acts on behalf of the Church ...
 

Quote

 

~

Lorenzo Valla (1407–1457) was the most important theorist of the humanist movement. ... His most famous work is On the Donation of Constantine, an oration in which Valla uses new philological methods to attack the authenticity of the most important document justifying the papacy's claims to temporal rule.

 

~

The Donation of Constantine (Latin: Donatio Constantini) is a forged Roman imperial decree by which the 4th-century emperor Constantine the Great supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the Pope.

 

~

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

Thought I'd provide the whole epistle of Peter to James.. as it refers to one of many explicit statements of Christ which modern day Christianity just seems to simply circumvent, ignore, deny.. 

If you are referring to 'jot or tittle' passage it's not that 'simple' since there are other explicit statements that contradict what it seems to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

If you are referring to 'jot or tittle' passage it's not that 'simple' since there are other explicit statements that contradict what it seems to say.


I am referring to the following (in whole):

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the 
   
kingdom of heaven.


..Please feel free to forward the contradictions here, I would request them to originate from Christ though.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:


I am referring to the following (in whole):

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the 
   
kingdom of heaven.


..Please feel free to forward the contradictions here, I would request them to originate from Christ though.

Leviticus indicates you should not eat blood, yet that's exactly what Jesus requests at the Last Supper.  Jesus touched lepers which would make him unclean, and it is also questionable whether he 'kept the Sabbath holy' since he would go around healing people on that day regardless. 

Do you, or Peter above, think that Christians cannot eat shellfish?  This is usually addressed by Christians with references to moral, ceremonial, and spiritual law and how some laws still apply and some don't.  I don't consider these divisions 'simple' if we're just working from scripture and, if one has no inclination to interpret these vague passages in the most favorable way to Christianity, can appear contradictory or at least unclear.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Leviticus indicates you should not eat blood, yet that's exactly what Jesus requests at the Last Supper.  Jesus touched lepers which would make him unclean, and it is also questionable whether he 'kept the Sabbath holy' since he would go around healing people on that day regardless. 

Do you, or Peter above, think that Christians cannot eat shellfish?  This is usually addressed by Christians with references to moral, ceremonial, and spiritual law and how some laws still apply and some don't.  I don't consider these divisions 'simple' if we're just working from scripture and, if one has no inclination to interpret these vague passages in the most favorable way to Christianity, can appear contradictory or at least unclear.

 

I think Jesus addressed this problem when he said "they strain at gnats and swallow camels."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

I think Jesus addressed this problem when he said "they strain at gnats and swallow camels."

 

 

Which also means that Jesus was lying when he stated that not one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, which also disqualifies him to his claim as messiah.

Come to think of it, Jesus was never officially anointed accordingly as to scriptural law too ...

~

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Which also means that Jesus was lying when he stated that not one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, which also disqualifies him to his claim as messiah.

Come to think of it, Jesus was never officially anointed accordingly as to scriptural law too ...

~

 

Do you think it's possible that what the Bible records as something Jesus said, might be entirely wrong? That he never said what is recorded but instead said something else?

I know, I know, if that's true, then what can you believe is true when it comes to the text of the Bible?

I'll only say that all of it must be determined by one's personal religious experiences with the Spirit of Truth.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Will Due said:

 

Do you think it's possible that what the Bible records as something Jesus said, might be entirely wrong? That he never said what is recorded but instead said something else?

I know, I know, if that's true, then what can you believe is true when it comes to the text of the Bible?

I'll only say that all of it must be determined by one's personal religious experiences with the Spirit of Truth.

 

 

I'll leave this to the Bible thumpers thank you very much. All in all, accordingly as to what is clearly legible and is documented ... Jesus lied or Jesus had no claim to any messianic throne, that much is clear ...

~

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, third_eye said:

I'll leave this to the Bible thumpers thank you very much. All in all, accordingly as to what is clearly legible and is documented ... Jesus lied or Jesus had no claim to any messianic throne, that much is clear ...

~

What's the difference between Jesus, and all the thousands and thousands of others claiming to be the Son of God or a Messiah or God?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, danydandan said:

What's the difference between Jesus, and all the thousands and thousands of others claiming to be the Son of God or a Messiah or God?

Idolatry ?

Oh .. let's not forget the Urantia Book ...

~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, third_eye said:

Idolatry ?

Oh .. let's not forget the Urantia Book ...

~

He's the only one we have literally no first hand written knowledge about. That's an odd thing to consider, ain't it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Leviticus indicates you should not eat blood, yet that's exactly what Jesus requests at the Last Supper.  Jesus touched lepers which would make him unclean, and it is also questionable whether he 'kept the Sabbath holy' since he would go around healing people on that day regardless. 

Do you, or Peter above, think that Christians cannot eat shellfish?  This is usually addressed by Christians with references to moral, ceremonial, and spiritual law and how some laws still apply and some don't.  I don't consider these divisions 'simple' if we're just working from scripture and, if one has no inclination to interpret these vague passages in the most favorable way to Christianity, can appear contradictory or at least unclear.


Please correct me if I fall short in my conclusion the blood you are referring to here is wine symbolizing the blood of Christ, signifying the Holy Communion.

The Sabbath; what is and what is not (un)holy on that day, he would be extremely able to dictate. The question is not if Christ respected the holiness of Sabbath (Mosaic Law), the question is if his acts of kindness / righteousness were in violation of that law, as was the position of the weary Sanhedrin, seeing him as a threat to their position of power. I would personally beg to differ.

I would also think that although touching a leper would mean uncleanliness to any normal contemporate, this would by no means follow automatically for a man able to heal the sick, and quicken the dead.

Exactly these sort of implicit statements being used to diffuse / circumvent an explicit one is what I referred to earlier. In my mind, these admittedly somewhat ambiguous, implicit statements do in no way overrule the explicit statement Christ made, not by a long shot. Thesame goes for all the countless explicit statements of Christ signifying a strong subservient relationship with G*d, completely contradicting the Christ = G*d / Trinity concept (and re affirming the Messianic one*). I seem to be the exception though, which quite honestly boggles my mind. Maybe I'm missing something, maybe I'm thinking too simplistic, I dont know.

 

Edit: *

 

Edited by Phaeton80
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, danydandan said:

He's the only one we have literally no first hand written knowledge about. That's an odd thing to consider, ain't it.

Honestly, I've never read it all with that perspective in mind before, surely there are other characters in the OT and NT that shares that odd plate of leaven bread

Just off the top of my head ... Saul ? David ? Solomon ?

~

Edited by third_eye
addendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Honestly, I've never read it all with that perspective in mind before, surely there are other characters in the OT and NT that shares that odd plate of leaven bread

David ? Solomon ?

~

It's any interesting perspective,. I was just speaking with regards to Jesus and Christianity. But the same can be said for Mohammed and Islamic studies. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, danydandan said:

He's the only one we have literally no first hand written knowledge about. That's an odd thing to consider, ain't it.

 

But Dany, that's what the Urantia Book is for. First hand written knowledge about it.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, danydandan said:

But the same can be said for Mohammed and Islamic studies. 

Well, Mo had a good excuse, he was illiterate ...

~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Well, Mo had a good excuse, he was illiterate ...

~

I just find it odd that vast majority of Religiously minded individuals consider it lunacy to accept a tangible person who's claim is to be a son of God, or whatever. But consider it sane that a bunch of second or third or more than likely fourth hand accounts of a dude from 2000 years ago. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

Please correct me if I fall short in my conclusion the blood you are referring to here is wine symbolizing the blood of Christ, signifying the Holy Communion.

As far as the first sentence I'm not sure if we should use 'signifying' and 'symbolizing' when referring to the Last Supper.  Jesus I think says something along the lines of 'this is my blood' and considering that he was already known to magically transmute certain liquids into others at weddings I'm not sure if he was using symbols here.  I had thought that some denominations (Catholic?) actually believed that during Communion/Eucharist carried out today that the wine is 'really' changed to the blood of Christ, not sure.

19 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

I would also think that although touching a leper would mean uncleanliness to any normal contemporate, this would by no means follow automatically for a man able to heal the sick, and quicken the dead.

Yes, maybe there are special rules that apply just to Jesus, but if he Jesus himself doesn't follow the 'Law' from which no jot or tittle has been removed then it could seem to bring up an inconsistency or contradiction.

19 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

Exactly these sort of implicit statements being used to diffuse / circumvent an explicit one is what I referred to earlier. In my mind, these admittedly somewhat ambiguous, implicit statements do in no way overrule the explicit statement Christ made, not by a long shot. Thesame goes for all the countless explicit statements of Christ signifying a strong subservient relationship with G*d, completely contradicting the Christ = G*d / Trinity concept. I seem to be the exception though, which quite honestly boggles my mind. Maybe I'm missing something, maybe I'm thinking too simplistic, I dont know.

Good points, I actually am not familiar with the specifics of how the Trinity came out of the Bible.  I just think that in the example you bolded from your James quote that although the statement itself is explicit, what exactly was meant by 'the Law' seems to differ depending on which believer you are talking to, although almost all agree that some of 'the Law' that is explicitly laid out in the OT no longer applies today to Christians.  Thus I'm not sure on this particular point that we should criticize today's Christians for not following these 'explicit' instructions if the specifics are unclear or complicated.

Edited by Liquid Gardens
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

But Dany, that's what the Urantia Book is for. First hand written knowledge about it.

 

 

So if I lock myself in a room take a bunch of hallucinogens and write a book you'll worship it?

Edited by danydandan
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

As far as the first sentence I'm not sure if we should use 'signifying' and 'symbolizing' when referring to the Last Supper.  Jesus I think says something along the lines of 'this is my blood' and considering that he was already known to magically transmute certain liquids into others at weddings I'm not sure if he was using symbols here.  I had thought that some denominations (Catholic?) actually believed that during Communion/Eucharist carried out today that the wine is 'really' changed to the blood of Christ, not sure.

Yeah, it's called transubstantiation. One of the tenants of Catholicism.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, danydandan said:

I just find it odd that vast majority of Religiously minded individuals consider it lunacy to accept a tangible person who's claim is to be a son of God, or whatever. But consider it sane that a bunch of second or third or more than likely fourth hand accounts of a dude from 2000 years ago. 

The one thing I liked about Mo was that he, right from the get go, absolutely forbade any possibilities of worshiping himself, he never claimed to be anything other  than a messenger that he claimed that he was. He really drew the line where idolatry was and he stuck to it.

He could recite the Quran but couldn't read ... well .. as far as his autobio of his day goes anyways ...

~

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Yeah, it's called transubstantiation. One of the tenants of Catholicism.

Sorry ... it just cracks me up whenever I hear this mentioned by me Catholic friends ... not all of them believes it, in fact I have yet to meet one that actually believes it, They just go through that ritual just because it is important to them.

~

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.