Jesus and Mohammad

[NaturaNaturans]

27 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Let's stop here for now.  I'm eager to read your response to the evidence I brought that Unitarian Christianity is "a thing" and "was a thing".  Also, I'm interested to read how you are establishing Marcion as a Church father when everything I'm finding is the opposite.

I agree, lets end it here. There are 2,4 billion christians, a handfull rejects the trinity, but the trinity is at the very center of the faith. 
 

Anyway, you are right, to me it is just a book. Parts of it i see a wisdom litterature, other parts as insanity. I pick what i like as i would in a restaurant, or what choosing a movie on Netflix.

 

Are there jews with a very sophisticated theology. Yes, absolutley, without a doubt.

 

I would also like to apologies to you. I have been unfair and tiredness and anger has gotten the better of me.

 

That said, it boils down to one thing: a doctrine, a faith, a book, can never capture reality or the whole truth, almost by definition. I hope you understand that for everyone who does not share Your faith, who said what in what line doesnt matter to them. Like, at all.

 

 

[Nungali]

17 minutes ago, NaturaNaturans said:

I agree, lets end it here. There are 2,4 billion christians, a handfull rejects the trinity, but the trinity is at the very center of the faith. 
 

Anyway, you are right, to me it is just a book. Parts of it i see a wisdom litterature, other parts as insanity. I pick what i like as i would in a restaurant, or what choosing a movie on Netflix.

 

Are there jews with a very sophisticated theology. Yes, absolutley, without a doubt.

 

I would also like to apologies to you. I have been unfair and tiredness and anger has gotten the better of me.

 

That said, it boils down to one thing: a doctrine, a faith, a book, can never capture reality or the whole truth, almost by definition. I hope you understand that for everyone who does not share Your faith, who said what in what line doesnt matter to them. Like, at all.

 

 

 

 

I think one can get diverted and bamboozled  by a whole lot of language and technicalities . It is very clearly evident to a lot of us that the God of the OT encourages  what even the God of OT himself forbids .   It is clearly a tribal regional  focus  that teaches 'these laws apply to you but not others ... go and do shit to them'  .  OR do the same shit as everyone is doing but feel better about it as you are chosen and special and doing it because God said so ... the supreme and only god , by the way .

 

And the God described in the NT is very different and applies the 'law' to all people , not just to the 'chosen ones' .

 

 

[NaturaNaturans]

And one thing @Daniel, when it comes to your disdain of pagans… maybe turn that down abit before you complain about people not subscribing or even caring about judaism.

 

Personally i prefer pagan texts like the upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Homer, the poetic Edda, Plato, the greek myths and even Harry Potter and LOTR to the Torah. And I am not alone, far from it.

 

Shame so much of it was oral, and what was not, got burned by lunatics. But a lot lives on trough popular culture, and that is not out of fear or dogma, but out of love.

[Daniel]

22 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

I agree, lets end it here.

 

I intend to reply to the remainder of your 10 points from the previous page.  And I'm still not seeing anything yet that would include Marcion as a Church Father.  And Unitarian Christianity is "a thing".  Not the mainstream, not a majority, but it has always been "a thing".  They're not Muslims; that's different.

 

22 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

That said, it boils down to one thing: a doctrine, a faith, a book, can never capture reality or the whole truth,

 

I think that's fair.  For me, the discussion that we're having is not about reality.  It's about the contents of a book.  It's about the fair representation of a book.  This particular book is important to me, but, I defend against all manner of misinformation/disinformation/propaganda online.  It's a sort of passionate hobby.  Fortunately or unfortunately there is plenty of it.

 

In additon, my objection here is attacking doctrine with doctrine.  The bible-critic's assertions are no less religious (faith-based) than the apologist when the critic has not read, nor is willing to read, the source material.  

 

Like I said, the unfair critic will always-always discourage detail.  They need the broad-brush generalizations in order to make their point.  That's how to tell when it is fallacious.

 

22 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

I hope you understand that for everyone who does not share Your faith, who said what in what line doesnt matter to them. Like, at all.

 

Naturally.  However, when this is true, in the past, I notice more agnostism and apathy in contrast to dogmatic certainty.

 

Edited January 25 by Daniel

[Daniel]

21 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

And one thing @Daniel, when it comes to your disdain of pagans… maybe turn that down abit before you complain about people not subscribing or even caring about judaism.

 

I don't disdain pagans.  I love pagans.  It's simple truth that pagans struggle with the notion of a unified monotheistic power where everything happens for a reason.   That's what distinguishes pagan from monotheism.   In order to "make sense" of the world the pagan needs multiple forces in conflict.  They cannot "make sense" of it any other way.  That's where the demi-urge comes from and the reimagining of the bible.  They cannot make sense of the bible any other way.

 

But, really it's coming from a feeling, an intuition, that there are multiple divine powers.  Then they go to the bible and try tto justify their beliefs using monotheistic sacred texts.

 

21 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

Shame so much of it was oral, and what was not, got burned by lunatics. 

 

Maybe that's why pagans come to the bible to try to bolster their beliefs?  They don't have their own scripture?

 

Edited January 25 by Daniel

[Daniel]

21 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

Personally i prefer pagan texts like the upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Homer, the poetic Edda, Plato, the greek myths and even Harry Potter and LOTR to the Torah.

 

Can you refer me to ANY pagan texts which do not describe divine forces in conflict?

 

Edited January 25 by Daniel

[NaturaNaturans]

5 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Can you refer me to ANY pagan texts which do not describe divine forces in conflict?

 

Havamal

[NaturaNaturans]

The death of Baldur is prob my fav story tho.

 

https://norse-mythology.org/tales/the-death-of-baldur/

[Nungali]

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

I don't disdain pagans.  I love pagans.  It's simple truth that pagans struggle with the notion of a unified monotheistic power where everything happens for a reason.   That's what distinguishes pagan from monotheism.   In order to "make sense" of the world the pagan needs multiple forces in conflict.  They cannot "make sense" of it any other way.  That's where the demi-urge comes from and the reimagining of the bible.  They cannot make sense of the bible any other way.

 

But, really it's coming from a feeling, an intuition, that there are multiple divine powers.  Then they go to the bible and try tto justify their beliefs using monotheistic sacred texts.

 

 

Maybe that's why pagans come to the bible to try to bolster their beliefs?  They don't have their own scripture?

 

 

 

More of 'Denial'  .... "  dont have their own scripture  "    !   HA! 

 

Get out the box Daniel and do some history , or at least try to get SOME knowledge about what you are trying to criticize .

 

Not only do they have scripture , they even offered up the books , to be accepted as ' a people of the Book ' ,  when the Muslims demanded the Sabians of Haran  -  a Syrian  hermetic center that carried the heritage of  the Alexandrian  Synthesis  -  either convert to Islam or prove they already had a valid religion  and scripture  . They  showed them their scripture , fudged a reference to their teacher as recognized in the Koran (  'people that appeared in that book , it was a vague reference  in the section about prophets before Mohamed )  where accepted , and their 'hermetic science' was incorporated into Islam thus starting of their Golden Age ' of science medicine and arts  that eventually influenced western  culture to evolve .

 

Now daniel would probably  deal with this simply  .... "  those books are not scripture "  and write pages trying to justify that .  But they where accepted .

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Hermeticum

[NaturaNaturans]

Wasnt what jews consider scripture… just a bunch of texts put together by pagan greeks? Septuniga?

 

and on the term pagan… well, i am starting to love it just because it is used as a slur by people i do not want to asscociate with.

 

But the real meaning of it is anyone who belives in polytheistic or etnic  religions, is it not?

If so, the irony is next level. My take, we would be better of without calling people gentiles or infidels.

[NaturaNaturans]

3 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Can you refer me to ANY pagan texts which do not describe divine forces in conflict?

 

Wouldnt «any pagan text» mean literally anything that is not in the bible or quran, witch is… all the texts in the world minus the bible and quran?

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, NaturaNaturans said:

Wasnt what jews consider scripture… just a bunch of texts put together by pagan greeks? Septuniga?

 

and on the term pagan… well, i am starting to love it just because it is used as a slur by people i do not want to asscociate with.

 

But the real meaning of it is anyone who belives in polytheistic or etnic  religions, is it not?

If so, the irony is next level. My take, we would be better of without calling people gentiles or infidels.

 

It meant anyone that was not Christian or Jewish  , at one stage , so included other religions like Hindus .

 

The word has a root that suggests 'country dweller '  - the religion of the country folk , not those in the city .  The city is always at the forefront of fashions  .   

 

 

"

pagan (n.)

c. 1400, perhaps mid-14c., "person of non-Christian or non-Jewish faith," from Late Latin paganus "pagan," in classical Latin "villager, rustic; civilian, non-combatant" noun use of adjective meaning "of the country, of a village," from pagus "country people; province, rural district," originally "district limited by markers," thus related to pangere "to fix, fasten" (from PIE root *pag- "to fasten"). As an adjective from early 15c.

The religious sense often was said in 19c. [e.g. Trench] to derive from conservative rural adherence to the old gods after the Christianization of Roman towns and cities; but the Latin word in this sense predates that period in Church history, and it is more likely derived from the use of paganus in Roman military jargon for "civilian, incompetent soldier," which Christians (Tertullian, c. 202; Augustine) picked up with the military imagery of the early Church (such as milites "soldier of Christ," etc.).

The English word was used later in a narrower sense of "one not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim." As "person of heathenish character or habits," by 1841. Applied to modern pantheists and nature-worshippers from 1908.

Pagan and heathen are primarily the same in meaning; but pagan is sometimes distinctively applied to those nations that, although worshiping false gods, are more cultivated, as the Greeks and Romans, and heathen to uncivilized idolaters, as the tribes of Africa. A Mohammedan is not counted a pagan much less a heathen. [Century Dictionary, 1897]

The English surname Paine, Payne, etc., appears by old records to be from Latin paganus, but whether in the sense "villager," "rustic," or "heathen" is disputed. It also was a common Christian name in 13c., "and was, no doubt, given without any thought of its meaning" ["Dictionary of English Surnames"].

also from c. 1400 "

 

https://www.etymonline.com/word/pagan

[Daniel]

On 1/25/2024 at 11:05 AM, NaturaNaturans said:

Havamal

 

Is this a religious text?

 

On 1/25/2024 at 11:09 AM, NaturaNaturans said:

The death of Baldur is prob my fav story tho.

 

https://norse-mythology.org/tales/the-death-of-baldur/

 

"After these oaths were secured, the gods made a sport out of the situation. They threw sticks, rocks, and anything else on hand at Baldur, and everyone laughed as these things bounced off and left the shining god unharmed.

 

The wily and disloyal Loki sensed an opportunity for mischief."

 

That sounds like a good example of a pagan story.  There is a confliict between the divine powers.

 

On 1/25/2024 at 2:06 PM, NaturaNaturans said:

Wasnt what jews consider scripture… just a bunch of texts put together by pagan greeks? Septuniga?

 

No.  The septuagint is a a greek translation.  The reason its called the septuagint is because, according to the story, 72 ( latin:  septuaginta = 70 ) rabbis were isolated and asked to translate the hebrew bible.  All 72 produced identical tranlsations.

 

On 1/25/2024 at 2:06 PM, NaturaNaturans said:

and on the term pagan… well, i am starting to love it just because it is used as a slur by people i do not want to asscociate with.

 

I'm not using it as a slur.  Are you taking offense when I use it?  If so, what term would you prefer?  Polytheist?  I'll use what ever term you prefer.  Hopefully you'll undeerestand my confusions since you've used that term yourself.  I know other pagans that use the term to identify themself and are OK with my use of it to refer to them.  But, if you are offended, I will respect that in conversation with you.

 

On 1/25/2024 at 2:06 PM, NaturaNaturans said:

But the real meaning of it is anyone who belives in polytheistic or etnic  religions, is it not?

 

 

Yes.  Polytheistic often with divine powers associated with forces of nature.

 

On 1/25/2024 at 2:06 PM, NaturaNaturans said:

If so, the irony is next level. My take, we would be better of without calling people gentiles or infidels.

 

What's ironic about it? 

 

I don't use the term infidel.  Gentile is perfectly fine word as far as I know.

 

 

The word "goy" became a slur in the first several centuries after Jesus' earthly ministry.  But, technically it's just a physical nation.  The hebrew nation is a "goy", per verse Gen 25:23.

 

ויאמר יהוה לה שני גיים בבטנך ושני לאמים ממעיך יפרדו ולאם מלאם יאמץ ורב יעבד צעיר׃

 

(K) And the Lord said to her, Two nations ( "גיים" Goyim ) are in your womb, and two peoples shall be separated from your bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

 

Per the hebrew bible, the jewish nation is a goy.  It's not *actually* a slur, but it became one later.  Nobody in my community uses it anymore to my knowledge.

[Daniel]

On 1/23/2024 at 11:08 PM, NaturaNaturans said:

This leads to another interresting point: focusing on the soul and not the letter of the text, another schism between christianity and judaism.

 

That's true in some ways, but, it's not always true.  There are places in the hebrew bible, where the spirit of the law is favored and the letter of the law is discouraged.  These are the passsages and exceptions that Christian theologians point to in order to confirm "We're not wrong."  And... they're not wrong until they ignore that these are exceptions in the hebrew bible.

 

On 1/23/2024 at 11:08 PM, NaturaNaturans said:

of course there is no such thing as jews and gentiles, unless you are a jew. Jews arent special in any way what so ever for the 8 billion people who are not jews. Most of the find the idea of the chosen people rather disturbing. Yet more evidence that OT god is a tribal god.

 

I'm not sure that you're in a position to speak for most people.  That said, the "chosen status" of jewish people is something which is misunderstood and exaggerated.  I understand that you don't like to read the torah, but, that's where this idea of a "chosen people" comes from.

 

Amos writes:

3:1
שמעו את־הדבר הזה אשר דבר יהוה עליכם בני ישראל על כל־המשפחה אשר העליתי מארץ מצרים לאמר׃
Hear this word that the Lord has spoken against you, O people of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying,

3:2
רק אתכם ידעתי מכל משפחות האדמה על־כן אפקד עליכם את כל־עונתיכם׃
Only you have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.

 

We were chosen and singled out for punishment... among other things.  That's why traditional jewish music is often melancholy, bitter-sweet in the tonal arrangement.  "Chosen" is not all champaign and roses.

 

On 1/23/2024 at 11:08 PM, NaturaNaturans said:

No point in commenting on the version you googled Your way til in order to protect Your faith. The old covenant refers to jews, and nobody else. There is absolutley no other way to read that. 

 

Yes, the covenant is with the jewish people and no one else.  That's true.  AND.   This is 100% consistent with the Christian bible.  Jesus confirms the tribal status and isolation of the jewish tribe in several key places.  Here's an example.

 

Acts of the Apostels 1:

 

6 So when they came together, they asked Him [Jesus], “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”

 

7 Jesus replied, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by His own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

 

Per Jesus, The destiny of the jewish people is fixed by The Father, the same god that is described in the hebrew bible. That means the jewish people are distinct both in the hebrew bible and in the Christian bible.

 

On 1/23/2024 at 11:08 PM, NaturaNaturans said:

Why do you qoute me isiah, jeremiah and other prophets of judaism? It is, again, irrelevant to everyone not jewish

 

In particular?  Because you brought a quote from 2 Corinithians.  The author of those letters was jewish and was referring to the jewish concept of t'shuvah, "returning" in the quote you brought.  The quotes I brought from Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Luke are all describing the same concept using the same language.

 

In general?  Wiithout Isaiah and Jeremiah there would be no Christianity nor "New Covenant".  If you don't believe me, please read Isaiah 53 and Jeremiah 31-33.  Ezekiel is also important, but lesser.  And I quoted Luke as well to lend support to the concept of "returning to god" which is required per the author of 2 Corinthians for proper discerment of scripture.  That's 4 biblical sources which you can look up yourself in support of what I wrote about "returning".

 

On 1/23/2024 at 11:08 PM, NaturaNaturans said:

No, I am very aware that Jesus despised the jewish priestly class and the temple/synagoge, and you know what, in the bigger picture, his «prophecy» was correct.

 

Maybe in that time and place he was correct, but, that is changing the subject.  This is what you wrote:

 

On 1/23/2024 at 10:29 AM, NaturaNaturans said:

A self proclaimed angry, jealous and antropromorfic god  who demands tribute and flattens cities to the ground is not consistent with the platonic/NT God, who is the "highest good" in lack of better term.

 

If you are aware of the destruction and the anger of Jesus' god in regard to the temple priests and the temple itself which was flattened (mostly), then, you should be aware that Jesus' god IS consistent with the god of the hebrew bible which is also described in those ways.

 

Although I would be remiss not to point out, from the 10 commandments:

20:5
לא־תשתחוה להם ולא תעבדם כי אנכי יהוה אלהיך אל קנא פקד עון אבת על־בנים על־שלשים ועל־רבעים לשנאי׃
You shall not bow down yourself to them, nor serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

20:6
ועשה חסד לאלפים לאהבי ולשמרי מצותי׃
And showing mercy to thousands of those who love me, and keep my commandments.

 

From the Psalms of David:

145:8
חנון ורחום יהוה ארך אפים וגדל־חסד׃
The Lord is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of abundant loving kindness.

145:9
טוב־יהוה לכל ורחמיו על־כל־מעשיו׃
The Lord is good to all; and his mercies are over all his works.

145:14
סומך יהוה לכל־הנפלים וזוקף לכל־הכפופים׃
The Lord upholds all who fall, and raises up all those who are bowed down.

145:15
עיני כל אליך ישברו ואתה נותן־להם את־אכלם בעתו׃
The eyes of all wait upon you; and you give them their food in due season.

145:16
פותח את־ידך ומשביע לכל־חי רצון׃
You open your hand, and satisfy the desire of every living thing.

 

The god of Abraham chose the jewish people, but it is the god and sustainer of ALL.  God is also described as merciful and kind in addition to the harsh punitive aspects.

 

The last line quoted above begins "Poseach es yadecha..."  "You open your hand..."  Here it is in song.  Notice the bitter-sweet melody, the transition in the middle to the upbeat tempo, then the return to melancoly/somber.  That's the jewish concept of "chosen".  It's bitter-sweet.

 

 

 

[NaturaNaturans]

On 29.1.2024 at 3:28 PM, Daniel said:

We were chosen and singled out for punishment... among other things.  That's why traditional jewish music is often melancholy, bitter-sweet in the tonal arrangement.  "Chosen" is not all champaign and roses.

But thats just even sadder in my view, the idea that you are born «wrong» or deserving of punishment.

 

edit: in fairness this is present in christianity as well, in the fall and the redemption arch. Original sin, no? The term in my language would translate to «inherited sin»… not a fan

Edited February 1 by NaturaNaturans

[Nungali]

Specially chosen  ..... for punishment .

 

 

That's some God you got going there .

 

 

 

I prefer mine ; 'specially chosen .... to have a good life ' .

 

I would not be able to cut this 'Jew - Christian guilt thingo .  I would have ended up a confused mess .

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NaturaNaturans]

Lets bring out the scape goat and the peace pipe for Europes last indigenous reindeer population instead.

 

Edited February 2 by NaturaNaturans

[Daniel]

22 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

But thats just even sadder in my view, the idea that you are born «wrong» or deserving of punishment.

 

From the perspective of the eternal: the crime, the punishment, the repentence, the refinement of individual flaws, etc... are all concurrent.  All events are happening simultaneously.  I am deeply flawed now, and, I am simultaneously approaching perfection, now.  The painful punishment is happening, now. And.  The joyous reunion is also happening... now.  The pain and the pleasure, the craving and the relief, are all happening right now from the perspective of the eternal.

 

From the perspective of the eternal there are no beginnings and there are no endings.  Every event, every moment, is never-ending and has always existed.  It is sad to imagine oneself born deserving punishment.  Realization of the inevitable improvement and rectification takes the sting out of it.  It's inevitable, because, the future events of self-correction have already been woven into the fabric of reality.   Any and all choices and their outcomes have been woven into the tapestry of life.  Free-will determines which of those strands define past, present, and future.  But.  They're all heading towards the same inevtiable destination: unity.