Doomsday/Prophecies The Bible - signs of the end

[CharacterFirst]

Interestingly, that could be read another way- a way that the eastern philosophies/religions would agree with.

It could be read as saying that the 'self' doesn't really exist. 'We' are our causes, so to speak; the manifestation of karma. "I am God; God is me".

That's the way the gnostics would probably read it.

hehehe

Hey Evo,

I don't agree with Evil Pleb (now there's a name for ya!), but the context of this quote of Jesus (there are better translations by the way) doesn't lead one to read it as a gnostic or an eastern religion might. It is certainly not how Jews would have read it/said it. Hearers, original readers, writer and speaker were Jews as well.

 

[evo]

Hey Evo,

I don't agree with Evil Pleb (now there's a name for ya!), but the context of this quote of Jesus (there are better translations by the way) doesn't lead one to read it as a gnostic or an eastern religion might.

That's because you're a Christian.

Which raises the question how can you ever be certain that you have the correct interpretation of it? It's the nature of language that a sentence can often be read a number of different ways. This is especially true if it has been translated from another language and moreover if the 'teller' didn't even hear Jesus say it first hand.

It is certainly not how Jews would have read it/said it. Hearers, original readers, writer and speaker were Jews as well.

Jews can be gnostics.

 

[CharacterFirst]

That's because you're a Christian.

Which raises the question how can you ever be certain that you have the correct interpretation of it? It's the nature of language that a sentence can often be read a number of different ways. This is especially true if it has been translated from another language and moreover if the 'teller' didn't even hear Jesus say it first hand.

Jews can be gnostics.

Oh well, I'm content with with I have written even if you're not.

 

[Grin]

There's no wondering why God will justly destroy such people. Good ridance.

Why are you and your God filled with such hatred and such inability to forgive.

 

[Monniehawk]

Why are you and your God filled with such hatred and such inability to forgive.

That is truly a cause of concern - and I suggest it makes most Xtians squirm as well. I suspect that EP does not see that negativity in his musings, tho.
Remember, also! Evil Pleb is not the sole representative of Xtians ..... or god, in the same way that al Qaida is not the sole voice of Islam, or Zionists of Judaism, etc, ad infinitum...

 

[CharacterFirst]

That's because you're a Christian.

Which raises the question how can you ever be certain that you have the correct interpretation of it? It's the nature of language that a sentence can often be read a number of different ways. This is especially true if it has been translated from another language and moreover if the 'teller' didn't even hear Jesus say it first hand.

Jews can be gnostics.

Ok. I feel bad, I will give a proper answer.

It's not b/c I am "anything" that I say a gnostic interpretation would be wrong, but be/c it wouldn't fit with those who said, read it, wrote it, and their intentions. Of course a Jew could be gnostic - but these guys were not. Genuinely asking, please don't post an argument on semantics on this one, it just become laborious and takes away any chance of a normal discussion.

As to whether the writer was an original hearer or not? Well i believe John was, others will not of course. But you can't have it both ways really. We quote Jesus and argue for or what he says, but lets not pretend we can quote him, and then call in question whether it is actually what he said. You either think it is or not, surely.

 

[ExpectToWin]

Such a question regarding the remnant wouldn't even need to be asked if you've comprehended what's said in the bible pertaining to such a question.

You say that I'm speaking for God, just because you think I've gone beyond proselytizing. I think I've made myself clear where I speak for myself and where I say 'the bible says / states'. But, if you want to believe otherwise, that's your prerogative.

I'm sure it's you who has misinterpreted the scripture. It's a clear cut statement, which is supported by other scriptures. Yes, Jesus was the one who stated: "He that is not on my side is against me,..." To answer your question that such a scripture possibly leads to questions about whether Jesus is God or not, (John 14:10) is spoken by Jesus, and says: "Do you not believe that I am in union with the Father and He is in union with me? THE THINGS I SAY ARE NOT OF MY OWN ORIGINALITY;..." This shows that Jesus was acting as God's mouthpiece while on the Earth. Also, God said to Moses: "You are not able to see my face, because no man may see me and yet live." Many saw Jesus and didn't die from it. So if Jesus really was God, that would be a contradiction.

How could prophesying and talk of the end times possibly have been going on for eons, when humankind has only been around for a bit over 6000 years. If you understood the bible, you would understand relative time from God's stand point.
If you believe the God of the bible is a God of fear, it only further displays that you haven't understood the bible's explanation of God's character and actions; and especially haven't understood the main point that's at the core of every issue within the bible and why things have been allowed to transpire for 6000 odd years the way they have. Given your lack of understanding, I think I'll treat your interpretations of scripture with an extra helping of salt.

I pity the mislead because their chosen deity will not provide refuge from what's soon to occur when the Almighty God takes action against wicked mankind. People have a chance to attain repentance before the figurative ark door closes. When God does act, no-one living who's capable of deciding for themselves will be able to claim ignorance or point the finger at someone else for not taking heed of the warning given within the bible.

Jesus also said "He who has seen me, has seen the Father"

 

[Grin]

When asked by Pilot if he is the son of god
Jesus said "thats what you say"
Jesus called himself the son of man.

In fact it could be argued that God is a humanist:

1. God created man in his image. If God is a perfect creator then we are exactly like him.

2. God introduces himself to the world through Moses. Pharoh asks Moses "Who is your god" Moses answers "I am"

3. God is made man through Jesus

4. Jesus (God) faces Judgement. Pilot acuses him "You say you are the son of God" Jesus answers. "No. that's what you say". Jesus called himself the "son of man".

5. Jesus sums up the 10 comandments "Love the lord your god (ie love yourself) and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Thus placing moral authority in the hands of the individual human rather than God.

6. On judgement day God seperates the sheep and the goats and tells them: "What you did to the least of your brothers you did to me".

It seems clear that we are all God, and that organised religion with it's modern equivilents of pharacies and saducies is very much what Jesus condemned and certainly flies in the face of God's and Jesus' mesage of morality being up to the individual rather than perscribed by a human heirachy interested in maintaining it's own power or in reinforcing the status quo.

 

[CharacterFirst]

Jesus also said "He who has seen me, has seen the Father"

Yep He also said "i and the father are one". He called himself Son of Man and Son of God, declaring he was both human and divine. He was killed for blasphemy - the religious leaders of the time didn't like he was showing them up, and his claims about himself and them (cf Matt 26). He used the divine "I AM" of himself; and many more examples.

 

[CharacterFirst]

When asked by Pilot if he is the son of god
Jesus said "thats what you say"
Jesus called himself the son of man.

In fact it could be argued that God is a humanist:

1. God created man in his image. If God is a perfect creator then we are exactly like him.

2. God introduces himself to the world through Moses. Pharoh asks Moses "Who is your god" Moses answers "I am"

3. God is made man through Jesus

4. Jesus (God) faces Judgement. Pilot acuses him "You say you are the son of God" Jesus answers. "No. that's what you say". Jesus called himself the "son of man".

5. Jesus sums up the 10 comandments "Love the lord your god (ie love yourself) and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Thus placing moral authority in the hands of the individual human rather than God.

6. On judgement day God seperates the sheep and the goats and tells them: "What you did to the least of your brothers you did to me".

It seems clear that we are all God, and that organised religion with it's modern equivilents of pharacies and saducies is very much what Jesus condemned and certainly flies in the face of God's and Jesus' mesage of morality being up to the individual rather than perscribed by a human heirachy interested in maintaining it's own power or in reinforcing the status quo.

Grin, mate. I haven't been on here long, but i hope people have seen enough to know I am not a "radical" (except that being a Xian is pretty radical to many, and counter cultural), and I hope people find me fair and balanced. But this post is really not a good reading of what the bible says. It is woefully wrong on every level.

I don't have the time to type and address the appalling misinterpretations. I know that sounds like a cop out, but anyone who sees Jesus like this, or thinks the bible is portaying Jesus like this, is way, way off the mark.

 

[Grin]

Grin, mate. I haven't been on here long, but i hope people have seen enough to know I am not a "radical" (except that being a Xian is pretty radical to many, and counter cultural), and I hope people find me fair and balanced. But this post is really not a good reading of what the bible says. It is woefully wrong on every level.

I don't have the time to type and address the appalling misinterpretations. I know that sounds like a cop out, but anyone who sees Jesus like this, or thinks the bible is portaying Jesus like this, is way, way off the mark.

And thus God dissapears in a puff of logic.

I wouldn't expect you to be able to mount an effective argument.

Also I never accused you of being a fundamentalist, although your blanket dismissal of my argument is indicative of a fundamentalist belief, unable to tollerate or contemplate an alternative interpretation of the bible.

I do agree with what you seem to be hinting at: that all belief based purely on faith is radical or fundamentalist.

 

[CharacterFirst]

And thus God dissapears in a puff of logic.

I wouldn't expect you to be able to mount an effective argument.

Also I never accused you of being a fundamentalist, although your blanket dismissal of my argument is indicative of a fundamentalist belief, unable to tollerate or contemplate an alternative interpretation of the bible.

I do agree with what you seem to be hinting at: that all belief based purely on faith is radical or fundamentalist.

Try not to get too defensive Grin.

A bit of common sense would be a good idea if what you have written here is really what you believe. If it is just try to get a rise, point scoring, etc - save it for someone else.

 

[evo]

Ok. I feel bad, I will give a proper answer.

It's not b/c I am "anything" that I say a gnostic interpretation would be wrong, but be/c it wouldn't fit with those who said, read it, wrote it, and their intentions. Of course a Jew could be gnostic - but these guys were not. Genuinely asking, please don't post an argument on semantics on this one, it just become laborious and takes away any chance of a normal discussion.

As to whether the writer was an original hearer or not? Well i believe John was, others will not of course. But you can't have it both ways really. We quote Jesus and argue for or what he says, but lets not pretend we can quote him, and then call in question whether it is actually what he said. You either think it is or not, surely.

I'm just asking you to consider it from another angle; how others could interpret it a different way.

I presume you have heard of the Gospel of Thomas. It is an important source for gnostic interpretations of the bible.

In the Thomas gospel, Jesus is presented as a spiritual guide whose words (when properly understood) bring eternal life (Saying 1).

These goals are presented in the image of "entering the Kingdom" by the methodology of insight that goes beyond duality.

So to the gnostic, Jesus was like an enlightened dude (Bodhisatva) whose goal was to help people enter the "kingdom of God" ( discover unity/ the infinite/ All), ie. become enlightened through the realisation there is ultimately no separation between self and God (All).

So when we look at John 14: 1-10 with the attitude that Jesus was merely a man, albeit an enlightened man, and God is 'the infinite' then it can read it in a whole different light.

bolded words are mine.....

1 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God[a]; believe also in me.[ultimately there is no difference between man and God] 2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? [duality - in Taoism it is the "10,000 things"] 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going.”

5 Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”

6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” [if you realise the illusory nature of the self and become enlightened like me, you too can 'know' God]

8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? [I am God, God is me]The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

 

[CharacterFirst]

I'm just asking you to consider it from another angle; how others could interpret it a different way.

I presume you have heard of the Gospel of Thomas. It is an important source for gnostic interpretations of the bible.



So to the gnostic, Jesus was like an enlightened dude (Bodhisatva) whose goal was to help people enter the "kingdom of God" ( discover unity/ the infinite/ All), ie. become enlightened through the realisation there is ultimately no separation between self and God (All).

So when we look at John 14: 1-10 with the attitude that Jesus was merely a man, albeit an enlightened man, and God is 'the infinite' then it can read it in a whole different light.

bolded words are mine.....

Yes. I get what you are saying Evo. I guess anyone can read the bible anyway they want. But it is really stretching things to look at the passage quoted above, and interpret it the way you have demonstrated. I reserve the right to apply common sense.

It really doesn't look at a plain meaning of the scripture, or take into account any of the canonical context for what Jesus was saying, or historical, religious, cultural issues at play.

You have to apply some form criticism. It's not all in the eye of the beholder, esp. if the beholder's understanding is a clear contradiction of context.

Isn't this fair ground rules for interpreting? If not I could say your posts mean anything b/c i choose to interpret them how I want, despite what your clear and intended meaning was. Total chaos, everything pointless.

Genuinely, have I explained myself clearly?

 

[evo]

Yes. I get what you are saying Evo. I guess anyone can read the bible anyway they want. But it is really stretching things to look at the passage quoted above, and interpret it the way you have demonstrated. I reserve the right to apply common sense.

But what you call "common sense" is already informed through a prism that views Jesus as literally the son of God. any reading will be in that context.

The rabbi listed all the different denominations in the other thread. Would you accept that not all of them consider Jesus the same way that you do?

It really doesn't look at a plain meaning of the scripture, or take into account any of the canonical context for what Jesus was saying, or historical, religious, cultural issues at play.

So to me this is saying you believe gnostics to be "wrong".

meh. It seems to me their reading is no more or less valid than yours.

In the end it all comes down to conjecture and interpretation, particular when it has come from another language and is third hand. Hence so many denominations and "schisms" over the years.

As for the Book of Revelation and believing it literally portends the end of the world, it seems reasonably clear to me crazy John of Patmos was under a lot of stress, traumatised by the siege of Jerusalem. It is the Romans who are going to return to reek havoc (in his time, probably).

 

[CharacterFirst]

But what you call "common sense" is already informed through a prism that views Jesus as literally the son of God. any reading will be in that context.

The rabbi listed all the different denominations in the other thread. Would you accept that not all of them consider Jesus the same way that you do?
So to me this is saying you believe gnostics to be "wrong".

meh. It seems to me their reading is no more or less valid than yours.

In the end it all comes down to conjecture and interpretation, particular when it has come from another language and is third hand. Hence so many denominations and "schisms" over the years.

As for the Book of Revelation and believing it literally portends the end of the world, it seems reasonably clear to me crazy John of Patmos was under a lot of stress, traumatised by the siege of Jerusalem. It is the Romans who are going to return to reek havoc (in his time, probably).

Ok. First up. Are you a gnostic Evo?

The common sense I refer to is not in the interpretation of the bible, its in the methods used to interpret the bible. Bible scholars use what is known as Form Criticism. Studying the bible for an interpretation is not just about coming along with your own ideas and then finding evidence for them with in the text as you imply Evo.

Yeah. I think gnostics are wrong as you think I am. The list of churches from Rabbi is not exhaustive, and yes there are nuisances in how we see Jesus. But they are all Xian churches who have the same foundational belief in Jesus as i do. They all see jesus as Lord and savior, both god and man, lived, died, resurrected etc. They hold to the same core theological beliefs as I do, ones that are included in creeds based on scripture. To imply that different denominations differ on their core theological beliefs is really a misnomer, or maybe mischievous. I don't you well enough to say which .

If you assume every interpretation of everything written is valid, which seems to be the end point of what you are trying to say -it all comes down to conjecture and interpretation then humanity is doomed to forever go in circles. Here is an example of your position in action:

I am glad you agree that Jesus is Lord and saviour of all Evo. What? You don't think that? Well i interpret what you have said that way, and all interpretation is in the eye of the beholder. Therefore it's valid to understand you that way.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is one of grace. It asks you to realize you are not perfect, that God and wants to be in relationship with you. To do that, we need to deal with those imperfections - sin. The answer is faith in Jesus as a perfect sacrifice for our sin.

I can't go over the original languages and third hand stuff again. I have before and it has been addressed numerous times even in the last couple of weeks I've been on this board. If you really want to understand biblical scholarship and how they understand authorship, dates, translating etc, there are numerous places to do so, even on this site in current threads. And you can look broader. Far, far greater minds that yours and mine have researched the scriptures and discussed these issues. It would be worth your while reading their findings, or doing so again if you are genuinely trying to understand how the Xian scriptures are studied and understood. BTW, i have studied the scriptures in the original languages (although the Greek and Hebrew is a now very rusty )

As for Rev. Yep, you could think that of it. I'm sure John was traumatized by many things, the sacking of Jerusalem by the Romans (which was probably about 25 years before John wrote Rev BTW), seeing Jesus die - although that would surely have been more than balanced by after meeting with him resurrected; and his exile on the island of Patmos. Anyway, John wrote down a dream he had, in an apocalyptic genre. You seem to assume everyone understands Rev the same way - as some sort of word for word prediction of the end of the world. You do it, other and me a disservice.

I suspect you know all this. So I won't go on. I am not really looking for a clever argument. I am sure you can give me that and even win. You may even consider this a victory.

As they say "There are none so blind......"

 

[Grin]

Try not to get too defensive Grin.

A bit of common sense would be a good idea if what you have written here is really what you believe. If it is just try to get a rise, point scoring, etc - save it for someone else.

Not defensive at all.

Just a failed attempt to engage you in, what I feel, is an interesting theological discussion. Which you dismiss out of hand.

These lines "do unto other as you would have them do unto yourself" and "What you do to the least of your brothers you do unto me" are surely fundamental to christian belief, and can also be seen to reflect a humanist approach to ethical behaviour.

Perhaps I'm just tossing pearls to the proverbial.

My mistake.

 

[CharacterFirst]

Not defensive at all.

Just a failed attempt to engage you in, what I feel, is an interesting theological discussion. Which you dismiss out of hand.

These lines "do unto other as you would have them do unto yourself" and "What you do to the least of your brothers you do unto me" are surely fundamental to christian belief, and can also be seen to reflect a humanist approach to ethical behaviour.

Perhaps I'm just tossing pearls to the proverbial.

My mistake.

Hey Grin,

I owe you a sincere apology for my first response to your post. I was thinking about this last night, and your post this morning confirms it for me.

I don't know if you believe in forgiveness (i hope so seeing you quoted scripture at me - bit cheeky eh?), but please accept my admission/confession/concession (choose your favored term ).

I still hold to the truth of what I said, but my manner and unwillingness to accept what you had to say on face value wasn't fair, and I did just dismiss what you posted.

Yours, CF.

 

[evo]

Ok. First up. Are you a gnostic Evo?

no mate. I'm just interested in philsophy and comparative religion.

The common sense I refer to is not in the interpretation of the bible, its in the methods used to interpret the bible. Bible scholars use what is known as Form Criticism. Studying the bible for an interpretation is not just about coming along with your own ideas and then finding evidence for them with in the text as you imply Evo.

I didn't do that though. I provided a belief framework (Gospel of Thomas), put myself in the gnostic's shoes, so to speak, and speculated upon how he might read that passage.

Yeah. I think gnostics are wrong as you think I am. The list of churches from Rabbi is not exhaustive, and yes there are nuisances in how we see Jesus. But they are all Xian churches who have the same foundational belief in Jesus as i do. They all see jesus as Lord and savior, both god and man, lived, died, resurrected etc. They hold to the same core theological beliefs as I do, ones that are included in creeds based on scripture. To imply that different denominations differ on their core theological beliefs is really a misnomer, or maybe mischievous. I don't you well enough to say which .

Many churches do not posit that Jesus is literally the son of God. I was bought up CofE, for example- the relationship between Jesus and 'the Father' was always kept suitably vague.

If you assume every interpretation of everything written is valid, which seems to be the end point of what you are trying to say -it all comes down to conjecture and interpretation then humanity is doomed to forever go in circles.

I don't posit that every interpretation of everything written is necessarily valid, but I do posit a gnostic reading is as at least as valid as a protestant or catholic reading.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is one of grace. It asks you to realize you are not perfect, that God and wants to be in relationship with you. To do that, we need to deal with those imperfections - sin. The answer is faith in Jesus as a perfect sacrifice for our sin.

IYO

 

[evo]

Character First, i will also add that if the First Council of Nicea had've gone a different way and decided to add say the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Philip you may have been interpreting the Bible in an entirely different way.

In my less than humble opinion your confidence that you have the only valid reading of 'what Jesus really meant' is unwarranted.

 

[Partridge]

How could prophesying and talk of the end times possibly have been going on for eons, when humankind has only been around for a bit over 6000 years. If you understood the bible, you would understand relative time from God's stand point.

Meanwhile, on planet Earth, the true figure is closer to 200,000 years. At least. That's just for humans, you can go much further back for other species.

 

[CharacterFirst]

no mate. I'm just interested in philsophy and comparative religion.

I didn't do that though. I provided a belief framework (Gospel of Thomas), put myself in the gnostic's shoes, so to speak, and speculated upon how he might read that passage.

Many churches do not posit that Jesus is literally the son of God.
I don't posit that every interpretation of everything written is necessarily valid, but I do posit a gnostic reading is as at least as valid as a protestant or catholic reading.


IYO

Of course, you are free to think as you please.

It's my belief that God has a great gift of eternal life and relationship with him for you if you want to accept his grace thru faith In Jesus Christ. PM if you are interested.

 

[Pie eyed]

Every Christian bases their concept of what's going to happen a) when they die and b) if they survive to see the rapture on the claims made in the bible.
What if the bible is no more than a pre-printing press version of a very long scam email?
What if when you answer or open the attachment you find you're in for something completely different than you had imagined or is set out in the text?
God does not have a good record of keeping his chosen people safe. In fact he has actively killed hundreds of millions of them.

What if he has misrepresented himself and is waiting like a small child waits for the ants with his magnifying glass?

 

[CharacterFirst]

Every Christian bases their concept of what's going to happen a) when they die and b) if they survive to see the rapture on the claims made in the bible.
What if the bible is no more than a pre-printing press version of a very long scam email?
What if when you answer or open the attachment you find you're in for something completely different than you had imagined or is set out in the text?
God does not have a good record of keeping his chosen people safe. In fact he has actively killed hundreds of millions of them.

What if he has misrepresented himself and is waiting like a small child waits for the ants with his magnifying glass?

What if? What if? What if? You tell me what if?

You don't really think like this do you PE? This post does you a disservice PE.

I am constantly amazed at non believers suggesting things about God, quoting scripture at believers etc. Me thinks you doth protest too much PE. What if it isn't what you suggest here, and is true!!!

 

[Partridge]

What if? What if? What if? You tell me what if?

You don't really think like this do you PE? This post does you a disservice PE.

I am constantly amazed at non believers suggesting things about God, quoting scripture at believers etc. Me thinks you doth protest too much PE. What if it isn't what you suggest here, and is true!!!

The reason is CF, and it's not directed at you, is at least in my experience no Christian I've ever met has actually read the Bible in detail, and certainly not from start to end. I've had Sunday morning doorknockers with Bible in hand and when I mention some less palatable deeds carried out by God they were in total ignorance of the events - they'd clearly never read the book they are trying to force on others. Don't you think that's a little odd?

If it's true we'll all burn. But I'm prepared to take my chances. Unless you're a lucky Jewish male virgin you're in trouble anyway.