Do you claim any religious faith? / How are you on sharing?

[elder999]

. 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)

Actually, the popular long-haired white guy image of Jesus can be traced to the Merovingian dynasty of France, who believed-and were believed by some-to be descended from Jesus.

Here's a 6th century Merovingian king:

 

[elder999]

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.

Acts 10:11-13
11] And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
[12] Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
[13] And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

People misinterpret this to mean that kashrut has somehow been suspended, when, the fact is that later in the chapter Peter recognizes it is God telling him to call no man unclean.....

 

[granfire]

Actually, the popular long-haired white guy image of Jesus can be traced to the Merovingian dynasty of France, who believed-and were believed by some-to be descended from Jesus.

Here's a 6th century Merovingian king:

View attachment 16255

I think the Byzantines had that image a lot sooner...after all, the statute had been removed from Olympia and brought to Constantinople IIRC.

But it's certainly a stretch to assume the kid was a tall blond white guy....

 

[granfire]

Jesus would have been short, dark skinned with Semetic features.

Oh the humanity!



Liek, noway, and it was snowing in Bethlehem, too!

Ok, jerk moment over.

Like this?

 

[granfire]

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.

LOL, around here, the bible has it's 'pick and choose' moments....

 

[elder999]

I think the Byzantines had that image a lot sooner...after all, the statute had been removed from Olympia and brought to Constantinople IIRC.

But it's certainly a stretch to assume the kid was a tall blond white guy....

Nah. Here's a Byzantine image of jesus fromthe 6th century:



And here's one from the third century, in Syria-the Healing of the Paralytic.



Oldest known image of Jesus. Looks a lot like Canuck said......:lol:

 

[granfire]

Oh, come on, I skipped that guy with the creepy eye on purpose! :lol:

 

[elder999]

Like this?

Gran, that's an awesome looking icon. Where's it from?

 

[granfire]

Gran, that's an awesome looking icon. Where's it from?

http://www.ancientsculpturegallery.com/icons.html

could not find a date on it though.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

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.

Actually the idea of the New Testament vacating any portion of the old is a fallacy.

There's a thread around here with that in it I believe.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...ath-Rape-Slavery-and-Murder-in-it-s-own-words

That thread's a train wreck, but feel free to pop over and roll eyes. Yes, I hammered it hard there. So, just tossing this in, do with it what you will, I'm going back to napping. After all, regardless of what's in any book, it's what's in your mind and heart that really matter I think.

==== Quoted from other thread ===

the new testament overrides and supplants the old testament

Where does the NT say this?
If this is true, why then is the OT included in the book?


But I'll continue.

Jesus affirmed the Mosaic Law even to the keeping of the "least of these commandments" (Mat. 5:17-19). He blasted the Pharisees for giving their own ideas precedence over God's commands:

• "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying... `He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say..." Mat. 15:3-4
• "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men..." [Jesus] said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother; and 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say..." Mark 7:8-11

Jesus reaffirmed the capital statutes of God's law. Not only the murderer (Rev. 13:10; 1 Tim. 1:8-9; Rom. 13:4), but even the one who curses a parent must be put to death (Ex. 21:17 and Lev. 20:9) just as God commanded. God's commands to execute the one who strikes or curses a parent are the death penalty statutes that liberal Christians are the most embarrassed over. However, Christ was not at all embarrassed over His Fathers commands. Jesus repeated these commands without caveat or reservation.

The Mosaic law was still in effect in the New Testament according to Jesus:

• "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets... Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great..." Mat. 5:17-19
• And Jesus said to him, "See that you tell no one; but go your way, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded as a testimony to them." Mat. 8:4
• "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do..." Mat. 23:2-3
• [Jesus said,] "Did not Moses give you the law, yet none of you keeps the law? ... Moses therefore gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the law of Moses should not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath?" John 7:19-23

===

Jesus did NOT negate/void the Old Testament.

Proof:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)3b)

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19)

“For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).9)

“...the scripture cannot be broken.” -- John 10:35


Also....also...you want to know a really interesting thing......the whole reason why the NT can not logically negate the OT?
Because, when Jesus is shown saying things about "The Law" he is referring to the OT because...and this is the great part here....because when he supposedly said this, THERE WAS NO "NEW" TESTAMENT!
Because the NT as we know it today wasn't put together until at the earliest a decade or 2 after his crusifiction.
(ok, that's the individual pieces. The actual NT was assembled from a vast pile of writings in 1546 at the Council of Trent, 4th session. A 'little bit' removed from the 'sources')



Also, he supported killing kids.
"Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)

===

 

[cdunn]

Problem, though. Jesus is reported as speaking to Jews. Jews are the people of the Covenant of the Ark - the recievers of Mosaic law. The other tribes of humans, not so much. So, the Mosaic code is not set aside for anyone.. but it never applied in the first place, the much simpler Covenant of the Rainbow does. But the gentile christian churches decided they could pick and choose amoung the Mosaic law, in order to lend support to their own decisions, when they decided that the Covenant of God-Human Sacrifice made them God's new chosen people.

 

[Tez3]

'Healing the paralytic', here being paralytic means being as drunk as a skunk lol! As for snow in Bethlehem, it's bloody snowing like mad here! Had to go to martial arts early as there's a raging blizzard going on, last week I was working outside in shirtsleeves, now snow.

As I remember (iI was reading about Byzantine culture at the time) the guy with the 'creepy' eye is supposed to represent two different things, each eye having a different meaning, can't remember what at the moment though.

 

[granfire]

Problem, though. Jesus is reported as speaking to Jews. Jews are the people of the Covenant of the Ark - the recievers of Mosaic law. The other tribes of humans, not so much. So, the Mosaic code is not set aside for anyone.. but it never applied in the first place, the much simpler Covenant of the Rainbow does. But the gentile christian churches decided they could pick and choose amoung the Mosaic law, in order to lend support to their own decisions, when they decided that the Covenant of God-Human Sacrifice made them God's new chosen people.

well, he did not wake up one morning and said 'Let's start a new club'
He just wanted the old club abide by the rules!

'Healing the paralytic', here being paralytic means being as drunk as a skunk lol! As for snow in Bethlehem, it's bloody snowing like mad here! Had to go to martial arts early as there's a raging blizzard going on, last week I was working outside in shirtsleeves, now snow.

As I remember (iI was reading about Byzantine culture at the time) the guy with the 'creepy' eye is supposed to represent two different things, each eye having a different meaning, can't remember what at the moment though.

Ah, precursor of the Catholic Church, the right eye does not know what the left is doing..... (Sorry Bill, could not help it! <sheepish grin>)

 

[Tez3]

I was watching a programme on the Arts and Crafts Movement and they featured the most amazing Chapel. Whatever your faith or none this is a place to come and look at. The symbolism is very strange though, not actually sure what really!
http://www.wyrdlight.com/watts/watts.html
http://astoft2.co.uk/surrey/watts.htm

 

[elder999]

Liek, noway, and it was snowing in Bethlehem, too!

It snows in Bethlehem, just not that often....

View attachment $Bethlehem-Jlem-Beth.jpg

 

[granfire]

It snows in Bethlehem, just not that often....

View attachment 16259

:lfao:

 

[oftheherd1]

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.

Well sir, that is the first time I have heard that! I am guessing you are referring to the septuagint or LXX. That is the Alexandrian stream of Koine Greek. That was available to the KJV translators, but from what I have read, they rejected its use. From my reading, the translators were fluent in Greek, Hebrew, or both. They used Hebrew texts, and works by earlier translators into English. I don't know what translation may have used the LXX to translate the Old Testament, but the KJV did not.

I am curious. Do you consider your Old Testament the inspired and preserved word of God?

 

[CanuckMA]

I am curious. Do you consider your Old Testament the inspired and preserved word of God?

It is the word of G-d, given to Moses at Sinai.

 

[oftheherd1]

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).

I have to wonder. You say you have no agenda, and only wish to put forth facts. But you miss the mark so often. In all the reading I have done, there were 54 men first chosen. Some did die before the translation was complete. All were linguists, and adept in at one of the two languages; Greek or Hebrew. The Greek used was Koine Greek, the Greek of the common man, and despite the fact the Romans were in charge, Koine Greek was the lingua franka when peoples of different nationalities wished to communicate in a common language. There are two streams of Greek used for translations of the Bible. The Alexandrian, used by the Catholic Church and most modern translations, and the Textus Receptus (or Received Text) used by the KJV translators and previous translators from Tyndale on. The KJV translators also used previous translations to compare their work with.

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).

Can you show where Aramaic survived to the 1600s? If there were Aramaic which was considered inspired and preserved, they would have certainly used it.

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.

There you go again. The KJV says, in Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre." In other words, the sabbath was ended, the time being "... as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week... " When you say the Bible says something, you really should specify which translation/version you are talking about. There are many. I only believe in the KJV. You can believe in another if you wish. That is your right. But to be honest, you need to say which version it is you are referring to. Not all who say they are Christians agree on the correct version of the Bible. But I believe in the KJV and will only try to defend it.

I Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is a (not the) root of all evil . . . ."

I can't really comment of this. I don't have enough understanding of Greek. But considering your current track record, I am sure there is a good and reasonable explanation. My Greek/English interlinear Bible does translate as 'For a root' but I think is has something to do with the use or lack of use of the definite article in Greek.

Acts 12:4 has the pagan word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover." The Greek word is pascha (&#928;&#940;&#963;&#967;&#945which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2

I 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?

Well, I can hardly wait, so please tell us (and from the KJV) and how it means that Jesus was married?

 

[oftheherd1]

It is the word of G-d, given to Moses at Sinai.

You probably didn't mean it that way, but it seems you were evading. So it is the inspired and preserved word of God?