Do you claim any religious faith? / How are you on sharing?
- Thread starter Jenna
- Start date
oftheherd1
Senior Master
yes, I do consider my scripture to be the only true scripture, and my God to be the only true God. I would expect those who believe in one or more gods would believe the same. I accept that they do. Why would they believe otherwise?
As long as your belief (or anyone else's) is valid to you, you are entitled to it, and responsible for it, as am I.
The Noahchide Laws are indeed binding to all.
Langenschwert
Master Black Belt
To a certain degree, the first one. My religion is an expression of the Indo-European pantheon. When people say that no one worshipped Thor after Christianity triumphed, they're wrong. He just wasn't worshipped in Europe. The Hindus never stopped. In Vedic Hinduism, he's called Indra. Then you had Taranis, Zeus, Teshub and Tarhun depending on where you were back in the day.
But things get confusing. For example, taking another look at Thor and Zeus. Both "thunder" deities. However, Zeus is derived from the same root as Tyr, another Norse "sky" god, and once head of the pantheon in Germanic tribes. So is Zeus actually Tyr or Thor? I dunno. And later on, both Odin and Thor were considered heads of the Norse pantheon at different times. Yikes.
And Yahweh was possibly originally part of a pantheon too, and has been linked to Asherah, perhaps as her consort, IIRC. Which explains why Yahwists were so keen on erasing as much of her as possible. Bad press for budding monotheists.
Best regards,
-Mark
How do you reconcile with the fact that your scripture is a bad translation of a translation of MY scripture?
oftheherd1
Senior Master
I understand your point of view. But hopefully you can understand mine. Christians believe the Old Testament is theirs too. We believe, based on the New Testatmen, that we have been grafted in, and become adopted sons of God. I don't expect you to believe that, but we do. I do agree that different parts of the Bible are often coopted for 'proof' of a religious point. My belief is that usually that is done by taking a verse out of context.
You or anyone else if free to disagree.
oftheherd1
Senior Master
What I was hoping was that you could provide examples of that from the Blble.
I'm sorry, I didn't get that about Isaiah. But I understand and agree that we hae a parent-child relationship. I hope I didn't say anything above that sounded different.
I would be interested in hearing why you believe that. I would say there were obviously Jews of Jesus' time who accepted those prophecies as referring to Jesus, and that they were closer to the times of the the prophecies than we are today. I also understand you won't probably accept that as any proof.
But you don't use Tanach. You discount 99% of it. Your religion is based on your 'new testament'. If you actually lay claim on Torah, then you have to admit that G-d lies and reneges on promises, because our covenant with G-d through Abraham and renewed at Sinai is for eternity. Not until I change my mind, not until I come up with something better, but for eternity.
oftheherd1
Senior Master
Yes, I do believe the KJV to be authoritative. Can you tell me how it is politically motivated, a bad translation, and of what bad translation?
Easiest one is the Commandment does not say "Thou shall not Kill", it says 'No murder". There is a big difference between killing and murder.
Isaiah's language is used to justify Mary and Jesus. At no time does Isaiah speak of individuals.
The followers of Jesus at the time were following one in a long line of false Messiahs. It is not until long after that text was warped to fit a story.
It was politically motivated to please the King.
It is mistranslated in several places. And it was translated from a Greek translation of Hebrew text. I said it before, you want an English translation that is true to the Hebrew, use JPS or ArtScroll. JPS tends to be a bit more gender neutral. Which highlights that even faithfull translations can be different. That is why when we study Torah, we always refer back to the Hebrew text.
granfire
Sr. Grandmaster
you forgot Latin in the mix.
And as anybody who speaks (fluently) more than one language can attest: some stuff does not translate well.
Or rather in the true sense of the meaning.
You get close, but no exact matches....
As far as the New Testament goes, it's also a bad translation-in part because of history's "telephone game" with it, in part because of the lack of facility of the 47 men chosen to make the translation- their Greek was not that good at all, and it was Homeric, not Alexandrian or koine-their various source documents were also bad translations-they did not have all the Received Greek text, and relied on the Vulgate (Latin).
They came up with good literature, and prose, but something really, really inaccurate in places-even in place where the Aramaic had been preserved over the years, they made mistakes that vastly altered what was actually being said-many of these things have led to oppressive doctrine from various churches that might not have been necessary at all (but might have happened anyway, as in the case of homosexuality).
Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . ." should be translated literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ." The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk.
I Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is a (not the) root of all evil . . . ."
Acts 12:4 has the pagan word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover." The Greek word is pascha (Πάσχα
which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2I could go on like this all day, really.
1) Was Jesus married? I'll tell you now, in spite of what you might have been taught, the KJV clearly tells you that he was.
2)What is the fourth thing Jesus said from the cross?
granfire
Sr. Grandmaster
So, as I read your reply, all those folks who do not subscribe to your religious believes are wrong.
Too bad, they tend to think the same about you.
And again, nothing new here, after over 2000 years of blood shed.
(BTW...to get back to the holidays and saints...you know the old motto: if you can't beat them, join them! What better way to convert than to hijack the holidays and deities. Rumor has it that our Jesus image is hugely influenced by the statue of Zeus from Olympia, one of the 7 wonders of the world)
oftheherd1
Senior Master
I'm not aware we discount any of the Old Testament unless something was superseded by the New Testament. For example, the New Testament releives us of the need for male circumcision and following most of the dietary laws.
But yes, Christians do tend to put more emphasis on the New Testament. After all, we believe it contains the words of Jesus as well as other inspired words of God.
That you don't believe that is your business, as is it mine that I do believe that. We each will be held accountable for our beliefs.
Most Christians don't keep the sabbath, the seventh day, holy-they keep Sunday, by papal decree, as the sabbath-a violation of the fifth commandment....
Sunday-Sol's day. Those tricky Romans.....:lol:
Jesus would have been short, dark skinned with Semetic features.
The language in the KJV is beautiful, it's lyrical and sounds good to the ear but none of that makes it accurate. Many scholars have said that the translation isn't accurate. http://www.yalereviewofbooks.com/archive/spring04/review10.shtml.htm
http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cpercy/courses/6362-wylde.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/24/weekinreview/24mcgrath.html?_r=1
The KJV is very important from a language point of view as well as a political one, it has influenced much but the fact remains it was a political translation, probably a wise thing in those days, which were hugely more perilous than now. If you were the 'wrong' faith it cost you your head, England had already had Bloody Mary and then Elizabeth, King James was supposed to unite Scotland and England settling religious as well as political issues. It was wise to publish a Bible that put forward the King's and Parliament's views as being the word of G-d therefore making the people 'settle' down to being peaceful subjects! Ireland had been seeing conflicts between Catholics and Protestants since Henry the Eighths time, so religious warfare and bloodshed was common.
Interestingly King James was an openly 'practising' homosexual which perhaps those who espouse the KJV while abhorring gays may not realise..
http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cpercy/courses/6362-wylde.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/24/weekinreview/24mcgrath.html?_r=1
The KJV is very important from a language point of view as well as a political one, it has influenced much but the fact remains it was a political translation, probably a wise thing in those days, which were hugely more perilous than now. If you were the 'wrong' faith it cost you your head, England had already had Bloody Mary and then Elizabeth, King James was supposed to unite Scotland and England settling religious as well as political issues. It was wise to publish a Bible that put forward the King's and Parliament's views as being the word of G-d therefore making the people 'settle' down to being peaceful subjects! Ireland had been seeing conflicts between Catholics and Protestants since Henry the Eighths time, so religious warfare and bloodshed was common.
Interestingly King James was an openly 'practising' homosexual which perhaps those who espouse the KJV while abhorring gays may not realise..
Torah is part of the minuriae of the everlasting covenant between G-d and the Jews. Note the everlasting part. So acording to you, which is it about the covenant, did G-d lie or is it that he just can't keep a contract?
I can't imagine why the 'New Testament' would say you shouldn't follow the Kashrut laws as these are there for purely practical reasons as much as religious ones. Food poisoning from eating the wrong things in hot countries was still just as likely as Jesus' time as before, if he kept kosher I don't see why his followers wouldn't. Judaism is a hugely practical religion and the laws are there for more than just being 'pious' something that actually isn't really encouraged.
