Jesus > Superman

[dshipp17]

Ehm... apparently an error in pretty much all newer bible translations, except the somewhat controversial King James version...

As incredible as it seems, that appears to be the gist of it; looks like what happened is that the newer translations were probably spring boarded off the NIV and things got carried away; despite the NKJV being the most commonly used Bible version, the translators appear to have abandoned efforts with the NKJV and latched onto the NIV for their efforts.

[dshipp17]

Ah no problem. But i don't think you should presume God's intentions or point of view if really you are a believer.

Maybe he loved my little joke for all we know. Isn't that one of the worst sin to pretend to understand what your creator may think or why he does things ?

Sometimes, it can be the worst sin to presume to know God's intentions; and that's what lead to some of the greatest mistakes in the name of religion in history, as I've been able to observe.

[carabas]

No I didn't; these verses were also written by Paul; what it shows is Paul adjusting his writings according to his environment; in some cases, he wrote the other set, because it might have been more politically expedient; the view I quoted may have been more in line with what he actually wanted to say; in my version, Paul is saying that Christianity is Universally open to all and requires equality for all.

Except, extremely explicitly by Paul, women.

Again, I clearly showed exhaustively that the Bible does not say anyone should marry their rapist; the translation that seems to imply that is not a correct translation.

No, you showed that one particular translation is kinda vague about it.

[carabas]

As incredible as it seems, that appears to be the gist of it; looks like what happened is that the newer translations were probably spring boarded off the NIV and things got carried away; despite the NKJV being the most commonly used Bible version, the translators appear to have abandoned efforts with the NKJV and latched onto the NIV for their efforts.

It seems far more logical to me that the version that diverges from all others is the erronous one. Especially considering it's a version composed for the political purposes of an English king.

And no, it's not the most commonly used version. It's the version most commonly used by right-wing American pseudo-Christians. There's a particularily odd dogma that's sprung up in recent years about this particular version as the one and only true version those circles.

Also.... still not adressing any of the other points then? Still tunnel-visioning on that rape thing?

[Aquacatlungfish]

Sometimes, it can be the worst sin to presume to know God's intentions; and that's what lead to some of the greatest mistakes in the name of religion in history, as I've been able to observe.

Did you know that when nobody is looking I turn into a magical dolphin? Prove that I'm not a magical dolphin when nobody is looking.

[adkal]

...if you go back to 25...

Go back to verse 22 and start from there. Hopefully you'll have a better understanding of the context and, overall, that the position of 'finding' extends throughout, not just when it is specifically mentioned. Nuance of language.

It'll be interesting to learn what your understanding and interpretation of verse 22 is, though...

[dshipp17]

It seems far more logical to me that the version that diverges from all others is the erronous one. Especially considering it's a version composed for the political purposes of an English king.

And no, it's not the most commonly used version. It's the version most commonly used by right-wing American pseudo-Christians. There's a particularily odd dogma that's sprung up in recent years about this particular version as the one and only true version those circles.

Also.... still not adressing any of the other points then? Still tunnel-visioning on that rape thing?

Nah; the other versions also came much later than the KJV, so, having came far earlier sort invalidates that argument, because, with the KJV being the original translation, it was probably more in line with the Hebrew translations which I illustrated; plus, even the KJV had to undergo some adjustments with a bit of Hebrew translation; despite it being off by some, the NIV appeared to be way off, as compared to the original Hebrew language.

Perhaps, but, based on my experience, the KJV is the most common version used in the Protestant branch of Christianity; clearly, all American Christians are not right-winged; that's a horrible stereotype; while you're thinking of the Caucasian churches, I'm talking of my experiences in minority churches (more left-winged), although I regularly attended Caucasian churches, also; despite race, and sometimes, the accompanying political views, the KJV Bible has always been encountered in churches. The Methodist churches are probably likely to dabble with the NIV of the Bible (and even they have a KJV still available), but I mostly attended Baptist churches or Churches of Christ; I attended Methodist, also; but, I'm sure it's just a mistaken translation, given the overall context in other Books of the Bible, as well as other verses in that single chapter of that Book of the Bible.

I just invalidated the rape claim; what other points do you think you've made that I should address? The other points were probably addressed in other posts.

[Addams]

Caucasian churches

You go to church according to race in the states ?

[adkal]

Clearly, my argument was that most of those hundreds, if not thousands, of people who saw Jesus' miracles (e.g. the five thousand feed fish and loaves of bread from two fish and about five loaves of bread)

Five thousand people didn’t see him do it. The only ones who were aware of the lack of food were the apostles and, after they told him, Jesus (as) (and the boy John says supplied the bread and fish). The crowd itself, after sitting on the grass, merely saw Jesus give thanks, break the loaves, and give them (and the fish) to the disciples to distribute. Of the crowd, only those who were seated closest to Jesus (as) could potentially ascertain that all that was there were two fish and 5 loaves, the ones towards the back would have no idea. (You also need to take into consideration the baskets the disciples had on their person)

Furthermore, it was evening – it was getting dark…

and His presence after His resurrection were martyred, so, what ever information they could have shared was lost; if not being killed, clearly their accounts were eliminated through some other means.

Woah, that’s a massive stretch. The text clearly states that these people were from numerous villages. You're trying to rewrite history to establish some kind of 'witch-hunt' against Jesus' (as) followers - nothing of the extreme nature you're trying to put forward happened because the oppression was on all who stirred up trouble, not just the followers of Jesus (as).

And the conditions were in place since the external record keepers, such as Roman, wanted the Christian faith to fade away.

No, they didn’t. They didn’t give a fig’s leaf about ‘Christianity’, they were targeting any and all who were causing, or likely to cause, trouble. At the initial stages there was no ‘Christianity’, that term was ascribed to the followers later (initially they were known as ‘Nazarenes’) and was used as a derisive nickname but was embraced by the followers after Peter seemed to endorse it.

Thus, if the only source for the information is the New Testament of the Bible, than so be it; no one has proven motive that leads to a rational suspicion that the keepers of the New Testament had motive to falsify or make up the information and every piece of information specified in the New Testament has been systematically verified to have existed as stated, with a few minor exceptions that does not take away from the overall message.

I’m not sure if this is through dismissing the work of scholars which disputes this view, or just unawareness on your part…

The people who actually saw or witnessed Jesus in action obviously contributed to the material included in the New Testament and there's no rational basis to believe that anything was fabricated to elevate Jesus in any way;

As before, I advise you to look at the early period after the ascension and prior to Paul’s arrival and his additions to the teachings. (And don’t forget, Paul’s a self-admitted liar…)

as a matter of fact, the evidence that the material is real is contrary to the assertion that the material is fabricated, because the early Christians were Jews who were very quick to label something as blasphemy in the area where the material record about Jesus was created;

I think you need to rephrase this…

if anything was fraudulent, nothing could survive under those conditions and none of the Gospels were written beyond a reasonable time period after Jesus existed. Even 50 years later is reasonable,

Take a moment to try and recall what you said and did 10 years ago. How accurate do you think you would be?

but, again, we're not talking about an environment of comfort for producing written material.

No, we’re talking about oral tradition, first and foremost. A tradition which had been weakening amongst the people for quite some time. Couple this with the incorporation of people who were not of Jewish origin, along with their understandings and backgrounds, and you have quite the mixing pot with no way of identifying what the actual teachings were and which ones were incorporating Greek philosophy, etc.

And my point was that the conditions where material was recorded about Roman was antithetical to the conditions present where the material about Jesus was recorded,

Constantly repeating something that isn’t true doesn’t make it true.

…Additionally, the people keeping the material about Jesus was already the poor and oppressed,

A generalization on your part, and you’re probably not even aware of it. It’s clear from 1 Corinthians, for example, that there were wealth folk in attendance. James also brings attention to the tension between rich and poor followers. Furthermore, we know that Paul depended on patrons (Phoebe in Romans, for example, or Erastus, the city treasurer).

so the added pressure with presenting material about Jesus made it less likely that an official scribe would have been able to record the material, outside of the New Testament;

In light of the above, can you appreciate, even a little, how false your assertion is?

[Surtur]

his importance as an icon isn't remotely comparable to that of Jesus.

In the real world? No he's just a major icon in pop culture, but in the DC Universe..I'd say it kinda is. Especially since Supes takes an active role in helping out humanity whereas Jesus is apparently nowhere to be found.

[Addams]

In the real world? No, but in the DC Universe..I'd say it kinda is.

Oh, nice point.

Do you think that if someone like Superman were to come to earth in the real world some people would start to worship him ? As a gift from god or something maybe. A new Jesus ?

I can totally see that.

[direction9]

thread makes me want to burn through this book on origen finally, and grab the rest in the series

[carabas]

Nah; the other versions also came much later than the KJV, so, having came far earlier sort invalidates that argument, because, with the KJV being the original translation, it was probably more in line with the Hebrew translations which I illustrated; plus, even the KJV had to undergo some adjustments with a bit of Hebrew translation; despite it being off by some, the NIV appeared to be way off, as compared to the original Hebrew language.

See, here's the thing... The closest to an original source to the original texts we have are the Dead Sea Scrolls. Which were discovered in the 1940's and 50's.

The King James bible was cobbled together in 1611. See how that might perhaps not be the most valuable translation around after all?

Perhaps, but, based on my experience, the KJV is the most common version used in the Protestant branch of Christianity;

How broad does your experience reach? Does it, for instance, extend beyond the American version of evangelic christianity?

I just invalidated the rape claim; what other points do you think you've made that I should address? The other points were probably addressed in other posts.

No, you didn't invalidate anything.
And no, those points were not adressed at all.

[carabas]

You go to church according to race in the states ?

Yes, some tend to do exactly that... It's probably related to how you have almost exclusively black neighbourhoods as well.

[David Walton]

I didn't act any such way. The suggestion was that the biblical God and/or the pre-Jesus Jewish faith were based in genocide, and that's historically untrue, generally unreasonable, and potentially dangerous as a suggestion.

It's also not something the majority of christians or religious jews that I know, would likely buy into. But, I'm sorry your faith is apparently both tested by the suggestion and also dependent on such a flimsy and hardly related notion.

As you pointed out, yourself, there's no historical basis for a tradition of total genocides or genocidal actions, outside of incredibly distant mythic past, when the next tribe or nation over was essentially just the next town.

You mention the Amalekites, which is a tribe perhaps descended from Esau who become a traditional enemy of our boys, the descendants of ol' Rassles With God. During that battle, which is the tail end of a generations long war they blame the Amalekites for (naturally), five hundred Amalekites including their king are killed. Again, they're not killed for not being Jewish, but for waging war, rapes, assaults and raids for generations. But, Amalekites show up later in the Bible, too, and even hundreds of years ago, you see Hebrew scholars suggest that Amalekites are less an actual tribe/nation/township, as the term is a catchall of "total enemies" of the Jewish people, hence the term's sometime application to Nazis or other organizations/nationalities by some Jewish organizations. Rabbi Hayim Palaggi suggested, near two hundred years ago, that those records were likely hyperbolic by design, in any case, and that ancient perspectives of "the world" were resulting in neighboring towns acting as if they were massive nations greatly separated when they were, essentially, second cousins.

None of which, including the testament in the Bible or predating texts, gives any evidence for an actual Jacob, Esau, Samuel, or their allies, lineages, et cetera. As Hayim Palaggi suggested, records of those eras were most likely mythic, hyperbolic, and structured by design.

My apologies as I thought your original argument was that Jacob made a case for genocide. I didn't pick up on the sarcasm.

As far as genocide being a challenge to my faith goes, perhaps I could have worded it better. Genocide is the extreme end of the spectrum, and like you said, there's not many people of any faith who would make a case for it. But I am naturally troubled by violence committed in the name of God and Christ, physical or emotional. (I'd consider the Christian push against gay marriage to be a form of emotional violence, for lack of a better term.)

So I do feel challenged by the reality of things done in Christ's name (both good and bad), and I always hope that I'll be better for it (and the world as well).