Why did Jesus overturn the merchant tables at the temple? Did he want them to do that to Him?
It's a good rule to live by. Perhaps the best rule to live by, but their inlies the problem: There is no universal rule of how one interrepts accurately what has been done to ye.
It's a good rule to live by. Perhaps the best rule to live by, but there inlies the problem: There is no universal rule of how one interrepts accurately what has been done to ye.
True, but it may not be so hard to decide how one would not like to be teated by others.
"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a.
There is a lot of interesting reading to be found on the subject of homosexuality and religion here.
in concert with God's other instructions make sense.
Otherwise, one could do something like, say, sexual harassment and then claim, "I was just doing onto others what I'd like done onto me"
We need to take all of what Jesus has to say, not just the pieces that fit well with our own personal philosophies.
Jesus represents IMO a critically important part of each and everyone of us,thus he was crucified.Foresaken into another evil,demon filled universe.The lesson is we're all eternally one from the factory floor to the rubbish heap,whether we want to believe it or not.Anyone that believes that Jesus is risen actually has no faith in Jesus what so ever.It's the opposite of what you expect.The resurrection did not actually happen and simply represents the end of a journey of the reality which was the crucifiction.Jesus is still alive and well with no ressurection required.
Secularists have better defined morals then non-secularists! We actually define our morals internally!
Actually you misunderstand. Born-again Christians have very internalized morals, given that God's Holy Spirit dwells within a believer. You can't get much more internal morality than that. And best yet, it's determined by God, not by man, not by 'religion'.
Jesus represents IMO a critically important part of each and everyone of us,thus he was crucified.Foresaken into another evil,demon filled universe.The lesson is we're all eternally one from the factory floor to the rubbish heap,whether we want to believe it or not.Anyone that believes that Jesus is risen actually has no faith in Jesus what so ever.It's the opposite of what you expect.The resurrection did not actually happen and simply represents the end of a journey of the reality which was the crucifiction.Jesus is still alive and well with no ressurection required.
think again. If the message was completely unified, how could there be so many different interpretations of it? For a start we've got three completely separate religions all based on the same book (old testament) -> Islam, Judaism and Christianity. Then each of those religions is broken up countless times according to the minutiae of interpretation. Hardly a unified message...
Judaism and Christianity do share the same Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), but the Koran is completely different. Christianity differs in that we believe that the long-awaited Messiah has come, as Jesus Christ, and that more was written concerning him and the unfolding plan of the post-Christ age -- something that Jews don't believe. But from Genesis to Revelation, the message is a very complete plan that God has been working out over millenia, and one that, as I put forth, could not have been written by humans alone.
We say flat, but we don't really mean flat because their are mountains and valleys. They average person would have figured out on their own that the shadow cast on the moon was Earth, but only the learned or clever would have discovered more. But can you rally blame them? The damn Moon only shows us one side. If only it didn't rotate exactly in tune with its revolution.
You need to widen your search parameters. Check out Isaiah 40:22
There are also plenty of references to the "the ends of the Earth' in one form or another, but was it meant to refer to the civilized or known regions, meant to be purposely be vague as not to scare the ignorant masses, or is there something lost in translation?
If the "firmament" is just a dome over the earth, and has waters "above" it, contiguous with the waters "below" the earth, what are we supposed to think?
Judaism and Christianity do share the same Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), but the Koran is completely different. Christianity differs in that we believe that the long-awaited Messiah has come, as Jesus Christ, and that more was written concerning him and the unfolding plan of the post-Christ age -- something that Jews don't believe. But from Genesis to Revelation, the message is a very complete plan that God has been working out over millenia, and one that, as I put forth, could not have been written by humans alone.
Which translation of the Bible are you quoting from? I'm always curious, as there are so many translations, all differing quite a bit, branching as they do from the earliest versions that in some ways are almost unrecognizable from what most people call the Bible these days. All the English versions have some definite idiosyncrasies in their translations and very subjective choices were made all along the way by the people doing the translation and rewriting. The "let there be light" in one of the earliest Hebrew forms actually seems to have almost a Sumerian interpretation that, most of the few really knowledgeable people on the subject (a group that actually study the thing linguistically as well as archeologically), seem to think is more akin to "let there be music/tone/note." It's an odd phrase in the oldest form, in fact, that is not really light (a mis-translation by the Greeks, actually) but more a feeling of aural movement. So, which version?
Why did Jesus overturn the merchant tables at the temple? Did he want them to do that to Him?
The reason that Jesus did that was because the leaders of the day allowed people to come and sell animals and change money in the Gentile court of the temple. This did two things. One, it desecrated God's temple. It was incredibly disrespectful to turn the place where people came to seek God into a marketplace instead. Second, it displaced Gentiles (non-Jews). The huge outer court of the temple was set up for Gentiles who were curious about this strange mono-theistic God to come and ask about him and worship him. By taking up this area of the temple, those who were buying and selling were preventing Gentiles (non-Jews!) from seeking the one true God.
So Jesus was incensed about the disrespect to our Father, and he was ticked off that these merchants were preventing non-Jewish people from coming to God. So he didn't have to be nice to someone who had illegally set up shop in the temple.
Which translation of the Bible are you quoting from?
I read NASB and a Tanakh (English translation done by Jews) primarily for the OT, and NIV generally for the NT. The literal NASB translation of the NT is a bit choppy to read, especially with Paul's penchant for run-on sentences. The translations don't differ that much, since they all go back to the earliest Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic. They don't really differ in the thought being conveyed, so I wouldn't lay down any dogmatic rules on translations that must or must not be used, other than the Message paraphrase is too far off to be used as a primary bible.
I believe, as does our church, that the original manuscripts are God's word. There are a few inaccuracies, but very few, and not enough to get thrown off of the true message. Heck, someone with Down's Syndrome can get the message.
....The "let there be light" in one of the earliest Hebrew forms actually seems to have almost a Sumerian interpretation that, most of the few really knowledgeable people on the subject (a group that actually study the thing linguistically as well as archeologically), seem to think is more akin to "let there be music/tone/note." It's an odd phrase in the oldest form, in fact, that is not really light (a mis-translation by the Greeks, actually) but more a feeling of aural movement. So, which version?
It's interesting to speculate what the original Sumerian form of some of these legends might have been, as we only know most of them from much later Semitic (Akkadian and Assyrian) redactions. The Semites were more or less completely dependent on the Sumerians for their higher culture as they infiltrated and gradually took over Mesopotamia.
Possibly all they had to contribute was their primitive desert sexual mores, and that has been amazingly persistent. Every time there's a new dispensation, be it Christianity, or Islam, or Protestantism, the people who have been left out of the previous power structure (especially women) are the first adherents and make it a success; but within a few centuries, the same backwards Bedouin morality becomes the bedrock of the new religion as well.
A "God" who could create the heavens and the Earth spends all of his time worrying about whether the repressive mores of some primitive tribe of flea-bitten nomads is being universally obeyed. Seems silly to me! I guess gays are the new women in this theory. We can deny them rights we never could to women (or blacks) any more, and really, what's the point of existing if you can't feel better than somebody?
If the "firmament" is just a dome over the earth, and has waters "above" it, contiguous with the waters "below" the earth, what are we supposed to think?
They weren't connected. God was making a space between the waters. This actually jives with what scientists believe -- that the ancient earth had a canopy of water over it. ('heaven' here refers to the sky, and the NASB uses 'expanse' where I think the KJV refers to it as 'firmament'.)
6Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
7God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.
8God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
I believe that the Bible really is God's inerrant word. That said, I believe the earth is very old and that it is most likely that the 'days' of creation aren't 24-hour days. After all, when the sun isn't mentioned until Day 4, how do you mark a day?
To go back to the 'firmament', here's a cool tidbit:
Days 1-3 God created spaces:
1) Created light and separated it from darkness.
2) Created the sky and separated water from water.
3) Shifted the water aside and brought forth dry ground.
Days 4-6 God filled those same space, in order:
4) Created the sun, moon, and stars.
5) Created the birds and fish (filling the sky and waters).
6) Created the land animals and humans.
So in days 4-6 he filled what he made in days 1-3. Kinda cool. Hebrew is a very poetic language, so this is neat that the writer ordered it in this way. It's reason for me to believe that, though I believe the bible is inerrant and is exactly what God wanted to communicate to us, he left room for painting vague pictures at times rather than giving facts and figures. Remember that this message had to be understandable to ancient peoples as well as modern ones.
I read NASB and a Tanakh (English translation done by Jews) primarily for the OT, and NIV generally for the NT. The literal NASB translation of the NT is a bit choppy to read, especially with Paul's penchant for run-on sentences. The translations don't differ that much, since they all go back to the earliest Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic. They don't really differ in the thought being conveyed, so I wouldn't lay down any dogmatic rules on translations that must or must not be used, other than the Message paraphrase is too far off to be used as a primary bible.
I believe, as does our church, that the original manuscripts are God's word. There are a few inaccuracies, but very few, and not enough to get thrown off of the true message. Heck, someone with Down's Syndrome can get the message.
Oddly, I've found that all the English-translated Bibles out now are based on middle-period Hebrew versions and the Greek translations. And, also oddly, you'd be surprised at how different they are from the earliest versions extant. As the light/tone error in translation I mentioned earlier. Totally different meaning, especially when I hear so many people speak of God's light versus the darkness bereft of God. When the "light" is taken out of the translation and replaced with the more correct "tone/movement," "darkness," "blackness," and anti-light no longer makes sense. "Anti-music?" "Anti-movement?" The whole white/black dichotomy doesn't work anymore. See? And that's only one example.
You are incorrect in saying that "there are a few inaccuracies, but very few." Not according to any of the scholars out there whose job it is to research these things (one of whom I interviewed is also a scholar for the Vatican, so it's hardly a secular group I spoke with). In fact, almost every line of the Old Testament has multiple translational possibilities that have widely disparate meanings.
I have no problem with people using any version of the Bible as a touchstone for their faith, but an exact reading... there is no translation out there right now that's even close to some of the original writings. And if that's the case, which one is the "word of God?"
It's interesting to speculate what the original Sumerian form of some of these legends might have been, as we only know most of them from much later Semitic (Akkadian and Assyrian) redactions. The Semites were more or less completely dependent on the Sumerians for their higher culture as they infiltrated and gradually took over Mesopotamia.
Possibly all they had to contribute was their primitive desert sexual mores, and that has been amazingly persistent. Every time there's a new dispensation, be it Christianity, or Islam, or Protestantism, the people who have been left out of the previous power structure (especially women) are the first adherents and make it a success; but within a few centuries, the same backwards Bedouin morality becomes the bedrock of the new religion as well.
A "God" who could create the heavens and the Earth spends all of his time worrying about whether the repressive mores of some primitive tribe of flea-bitten nomads is being universally obeyed. Seems silly to me! I guess gays are the new women in this theory. We can deny them rights we never could to women (or blacks) any more, and really, what's the point of existing if you can't feel better than somebody?
I was more speaking of the translations of the earliest versions of the Bible so far found (they were not in Sumerian, by the way -- which is not quite a written language in the same way as later ones). In that, the word for God, seems to be closest to an iconic glyph related to the Sumerian that is neither male, nor female, but both. I think it's interesting that the "Him" is a later translation artifact that seems to have been either subjectively inserted, or politically.
Comments
Why did Jesus overturn the merchant tables at the temple? Did he want them to do that to Him?
It's a good rule to live by. Perhaps the best rule to live by, but their inlies the problem: There is no universal rule of how one interrepts accurately what has been done to ye.
It's a good rule to live by. Perhaps the best rule to live by, but there inlies the problem: There is no universal rule of how one interrepts accurately what has been done to ye.
True, but it may not be so hard to decide how one would not like to be teated by others.
"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a.
There is a lot of interesting reading to be found on the subject of homosexuality and religion here.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/homosexu.htm
in concert with God's other instructions make sense.
Otherwise, one could do something like, say, sexual harassment and then claim, "I was just doing onto others what I'd like done onto me"
We need to take all of what Jesus has to say, not just the pieces that fit well with our own personal philosophies.
Jesus represents IMO a critically important part of each and everyone of us,thus he was crucified.Foresaken into another evil,demon filled universe.The lesson is we're all eternally one from the factory floor to the rubbish heap,whether we want to believe it or not.Anyone that believes that Jesus is risen actually has no faith in Jesus what so ever.It's the opposite of what you expect.The resurrection did not actually happen and simply represents the end of a journey of the reality which was the crucifiction.Jesus is still alive and well with no ressurection required.
Just my two cents.
Of course, the Bible states quite clearly that the Earth is flat, as well....
Your arguments were well-reasoned up until that point. No where does the bible say that the earth is flat.
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/...1=31&bookset=2
Secularists have better defined morals then non-secularists! We actually define our morals internally!
Actually you misunderstand. Born-again Christians have very internalized morals, given that God's Holy Spirit dwells within a believer. You can't get much more internal morality than that. And best yet, it's determined by God, not by man, not by 'religion'.
Jesus represents IMO a critically important part of each and everyone of us,thus he was crucified.Foresaken into another evil,demon filled universe.The lesson is we're all eternally one from the factory floor to the rubbish heap,whether we want to believe it or not.Anyone that believes that Jesus is risen actually has no faith in Jesus what so ever.It's the opposite of what you expect.The resurrection did not actually happen and simply represents the end of a journey of the reality which was the crucifiction.Jesus is still alive and well with no ressurection required.
Just my two cents.
Where did you get your two cents?
Judaism and Christianity do share the same Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), but the Koran is completely different. Christianity differs in that we believe that the long-awaited Messiah has come, as Jesus Christ, and that more was written concerning him and the unfolding plan of the post-Christ age -- something that Jews don't believe. But from Genesis to Revelation, the message is a very complete plan that God has been working out over millenia, and one that, as I put forth, could not have been written by humans alone.
Your arguments were well-reasoned up until that point. No where does the bible say that the earth is flat.
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/...1=31&bookset=2
We say flat, but we don't really mean flat because their are mountains and valleys. They average person would have figured out on their own that the shadow cast on the moon was Earth, but only the learned or clever would have discovered more. But can you rally blame them? The damn Moon only shows us one side. If only it didn't rotate exactly in tune with its revolution.
You need to widen your search parameters. Check out Isaiah 40:22There are also plenty of references to the "the ends of the Earth' in one form or another, but was it meant to refer to the civilized or known regions, meant to be purposely be vague as not to scare the ignorant masses, or is there something lost in translation?
Where did you get your two cents?
You should save yours to pay Hades.
Judaism and Christianity do share the same Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), but the Koran is completely different.
If their were ever an incident of plagiarism, it would be the Old Testament being based on many aspects of the Qur'an.
Your arguments were well-reasoned up until that point. No where does the bible say that the earth is flat.
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/...1=31&bookset=2
If the "firmament" is just a dome over the earth, and has waters "above" it, contiguous with the waters "below" the earth, what are we supposed to think?
Where did you get your two cents?
One from each universe.Remember the earth is a big ball of fire not that far below us.
Otherwise, one could do something like, say, sexual harassment and then claim, "I was just doing onto others what I'd like done onto me".
Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
I had never looked at the "unto others" concept in such a negative way before.
The text speaks of trust in others that is necessary for tolerance to exist.
Your post is astounding to me. It's like you use those words as a stone.
Judaism and Christianity do share the same Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), but the Koran is completely different. Christianity differs in that we believe that the long-awaited Messiah has come, as Jesus Christ, and that more was written concerning him and the unfolding plan of the post-Christ age -- something that Jews don't believe. But from Genesis to Revelation, the message is a very complete plan that God has been working out over millenia, and one that, as I put forth, could not have been written by humans alone.
Which translation of the Bible are you quoting from? I'm always curious, as there are so many translations, all differing quite a bit, branching as they do from the earliest versions that in some ways are almost unrecognizable from what most people call the Bible these days. All the English versions have some definite idiosyncrasies in their translations and very subjective choices were made all along the way by the people doing the translation and rewriting. The "let there be light" in one of the earliest Hebrew forms actually seems to have almost a Sumerian interpretation that, most of the few really knowledgeable people on the subject (a group that actually study the thing linguistically as well as archeologically), seem to think is more akin to "let there be music/tone/note." It's an odd phrase in the oldest form, in fact, that is not really light (a mis-translation by the Greeks, actually) but more a feeling of aural movement. So, which version?
Why did Jesus overturn the merchant tables at the temple? Did he want them to do that to Him?
The reason that Jesus did that was because the leaders of the day allowed people to come and sell animals and change money in the Gentile court of the temple. This did two things. One, it desecrated God's temple. It was incredibly disrespectful to turn the place where people came to seek God into a marketplace instead. Second, it displaced Gentiles (non-Jews). The huge outer court of the temple was set up for Gentiles who were curious about this strange mono-theistic God to come and ask about him and worship him. By taking up this area of the temple, those who were buying and selling were preventing Gentiles (non-Jews!) from seeking the one true God.
So Jesus was incensed about the disrespect to our Father, and he was ticked off that these merchants were preventing non-Jewish people from coming to God. So he didn't have to be nice to someone who had illegally set up shop in the temple.
You should save yours to pay Hades.
The path is wide that leads to Hades. It must be free.
Christ offers an alternative for us goofs. We just have to be smart enough to accept it.
Which translation of the Bible are you quoting from?
I read NASB and a Tanakh (English translation done by Jews) primarily for the OT, and NIV generally for the NT. The literal NASB translation of the NT is a bit choppy to read, especially with Paul's penchant for run-on sentences. The translations don't differ that much, since they all go back to the earliest Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic. They don't really differ in the thought being conveyed, so I wouldn't lay down any dogmatic rules on translations that must or must not be used, other than the Message paraphrase is too far off to be used as a primary bible.
I believe, as does our church, that the original manuscripts are God's word. There are a few inaccuracies, but very few, and not enough to get thrown off of the true message. Heck, someone with Down's Syndrome can get the message.
....The "let there be light" in one of the earliest Hebrew forms actually seems to have almost a Sumerian interpretation that, most of the few really knowledgeable people on the subject (a group that actually study the thing linguistically as well as archeologically), seem to think is more akin to "let there be music/tone/note." It's an odd phrase in the oldest form, in fact, that is not really light (a mis-translation by the Greeks, actually) but more a feeling of aural movement. So, which version?
It's interesting to speculate what the original Sumerian form of some of these legends might have been, as we only know most of them from much later Semitic (Akkadian and Assyrian) redactions. The Semites were more or less completely dependent on the Sumerians for their higher culture as they infiltrated and gradually took over Mesopotamia.
Possibly all they had to contribute was their primitive desert sexual mores, and that has been amazingly persistent. Every time there's a new dispensation, be it Christianity, or Islam, or Protestantism, the people who have been left out of the previous power structure (especially women) are the first adherents and make it a success; but within a few centuries, the same backwards Bedouin morality becomes the bedrock of the new religion as well.
A "God" who could create the heavens and the Earth spends all of his time worrying about whether the repressive mores of some primitive tribe of flea-bitten nomads is being universally obeyed. Seems silly to me! I guess gays are the new women in this theory. We can deny them rights we never could to women (or blacks) any more, and really, what's the point of existing if you can't feel better than somebody?
If the "firmament" is just a dome over the earth, and has waters "above" it, contiguous with the waters "below" the earth, what are we supposed to think?
They weren't connected. God was making a space between the waters. This actually jives with what scientists believe -- that the ancient earth had a canopy of water over it. ('heaven' here refers to the sky, and the NASB uses 'expanse' where I think the KJV refers to it as 'firmament'.)
6Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
7God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.
8God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
I believe that the Bible really is God's inerrant word. That said, I believe the earth is very old and that it is most likely that the 'days' of creation aren't 24-hour days. After all, when the sun isn't mentioned until Day 4, how do you mark a day?
To go back to the 'firmament', here's a cool tidbit:
Days 1-3 God created spaces:
1) Created light and separated it from darkness.
2) Created the sky and separated water from water.
3) Shifted the water aside and brought forth dry ground.
Days 4-6 God filled those same space, in order:
4) Created the sun, moon, and stars.
5) Created the birds and fish (filling the sky and waters).
6) Created the land animals and humans.
So in days 4-6 he filled what he made in days 1-3. Kinda cool. Hebrew is a very poetic language, so this is neat that the writer ordered it in this way. It's reason for me to believe that, though I believe the bible is inerrant and is exactly what God wanted to communicate to us, he left room for painting vague pictures at times rather than giving facts and figures. Remember that this message had to be understandable to ancient peoples as well as modern ones.
I read NASB and a Tanakh (English translation done by Jews) primarily for the OT, and NIV generally for the NT. The literal NASB translation of the NT is a bit choppy to read, especially with Paul's penchant for run-on sentences. The translations don't differ that much, since they all go back to the earliest Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic. They don't really differ in the thought being conveyed, so I wouldn't lay down any dogmatic rules on translations that must or must not be used, other than the Message paraphrase is too far off to be used as a primary bible.
I believe, as does our church, that the original manuscripts are God's word. There are a few inaccuracies, but very few, and not enough to get thrown off of the true message. Heck, someone with Down's Syndrome can get the message.
Oddly, I've found that all the English-translated Bibles out now are based on middle-period Hebrew versions and the Greek translations. And, also oddly, you'd be surprised at how different they are from the earliest versions extant. As the light/tone error in translation I mentioned earlier. Totally different meaning, especially when I hear so many people speak of God's light versus the darkness bereft of God. When the "light" is taken out of the translation and replaced with the more correct "tone/movement," "darkness," "blackness," and anti-light no longer makes sense. "Anti-music?" "Anti-movement?" The whole white/black dichotomy doesn't work anymore. See? And that's only one example.
You are incorrect in saying that "there are a few inaccuracies, but very few." Not according to any of the scholars out there whose job it is to research these things (one of whom I interviewed is also a scholar for the Vatican, so it's hardly a secular group I spoke with). In fact, almost every line of the Old Testament has multiple translational possibilities that have widely disparate meanings.
I have no problem with people using any version of the Bible as a touchstone for their faith, but an exact reading... there is no translation out there right now that's even close to some of the original writings. And if that's the case, which one is the "word of God?"
It's interesting to speculate what the original Sumerian form of some of these legends might have been, as we only know most of them from much later Semitic (Akkadian and Assyrian) redactions. The Semites were more or less completely dependent on the Sumerians for their higher culture as they infiltrated and gradually took over Mesopotamia.
Possibly all they had to contribute was their primitive desert sexual mores, and that has been amazingly persistent. Every time there's a new dispensation, be it Christianity, or Islam, or Protestantism, the people who have been left out of the previous power structure (especially women) are the first adherents and make it a success; but within a few centuries, the same backwards Bedouin morality becomes the bedrock of the new religion as well.
A "God" who could create the heavens and the Earth spends all of his time worrying about whether the repressive mores of some primitive tribe of flea-bitten nomads is being universally obeyed. Seems silly to me! I guess gays are the new women in this theory. We can deny them rights we never could to women (or blacks) any more, and really, what's the point of existing if you can't feel better than somebody?
I was more speaking of the translations of the earliest versions of the Bible so far found (they were not in Sumerian, by the way -- which is not quite a written language in the same way as later ones). In that, the word for God, seems to be closest to an iconic glyph related to the Sumerian that is neither male, nor female, but both. I think it's interesting that the "Him" is a later translation artifact that seems to have been either subjectively inserted, or politically.
All the rest of what you say is pretty cool.