Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it's a step forward that he has discarded at least some of the Bible and Christianity that does not agree with what he prefers. And that he has no truck with creationism. There's a lot more that we agree on than we disagree on. He still thinks of course that God created everything (or I am pretty sure he does) and he accepts the Jesus story as broadly true and sees the crucifixion as a demonstration of Love, in some way, rather than the Roman execution of a troublemaker, which it was. That would be ok, were it not that the opinions are presented as fact that we ought accept because he says so, and we are all stupid, arrogant or malicious if we don't.
If that's what he believes, then he can't mix Buddhism into it.
Where did you get that idea? I still believe in God just not the Willful Creation part. You are essentially a "God" to the cells and biota that comprise you but it has nothing to do with your Will creating them. We are part of God but it has nothing to do with God's Will creating us. Everything is some part of God so we exist because God exists, NOT because He willed us to exist. Guatama just didn't trust God or any permanent entity because he wanted karma samsara to end.
Where did you get that idea? I still believe in God just not the Willful Creation part. You are essentially a "God" to the cells and biota that comprise you but it has nothing to do with your Will creating them. We are part of God but it has nothing to do with God's Will creating us. Everything is some part of God so we exist because God exists, NOT because He willed us to exist. Guatama just didn't trust God or any permanent entity because he wanted karma samsara to end.
I am not disagreeing with you about what Buddha believed, but I explained the reason for it - distrust of ANY permanent entity because of his desire for an end to samsara and the cause/effect issue of karma. I was a Buddhist atheist for years before my experience in deep meditation.
I am not disagreeing with you about what Buddha believed, but I explained the reason for it - distrust of ANY permanent entity because of his desire for an end to samsara and the cause/effect issue of karma. I was a Buddhist atheist for years before my experience in deep meditation.
There are many people qualified to lecture about Buddhist thought. The Dalai Lama. The monk I tutor in English. The abbot of our local temple. And you're entitled to your own beliefs. But to the folks here that may be reading these posts: don't accept anything that Mystic has stated about Buddhism as being in any way reflective of mainstream Buddhist thought. There are many resources available to those who are interested, including local Buddhist temples and online. What Mystic has been saying in this thread about Buddhism is way beyond left field.
The original words for Persian used in the The Book of Daniel are phrsi·a and phrsa·e.
No, the original words are in a different alphabet, and in that alphabet, the words are, as posted, פרסיא and הפרסי
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
The Book of Daniel was written in Biblical Aramaic. The similarity of the word pharisees and phrsi·a or phrsa·ea is obvious and it is striking.
No, it isn't. Each is based on a 3 letter root and they share 2 of the 3 letters and are pronounced differently. Only once you transliterate them into English can you claim similarity. In their source languages the difference between p-r-s and p-r-sh is clear and obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
So why does there appear to have been an attempt by Jewish and Christian scholars to change the original meaning meaning of the word pharisees from Persian to something entirely different?
Not a change. As shown, a completely different word. Different root. And textual sources to show that other word's biblical presence.
No, the original words are in a different alphabet, and in that alphabet, the words are, as posted, פרסיא and הפרסי
No, it isn't. Each is based on a 3 letter root and they share 2 of the 3 letters and are pronounced differently. Only once you transliterate them into English can you claim similarity. In their source languages the difference between p-r-s and p-r-sh is clear and obvious.
Not a change. As shown, a completely different word. Different root. And textual sources to show that other word's biblical presence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
The original words for Persian used in the The Book of Daniel are phrsi·a and phrsa·e.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends
No, the original words are in a different alphabet, and in that alphabet, the words are, as posted, פרסיא and הפרסי
Except that the words for Persian shown in the Hebrew Interlinear translation of Daniel 6:22 are phrsi·a and phrsa·e. I didn't make that up. I would invite all interested parties to check it out for themselves. http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineI...OTpdf/dan6.pdf
In your original post (Post #41 of this string) you stated: "The Hebrew word for Persia is Paras (P-R-S) as seen in the scroll of Esther. Different spelling." But, as I have established, that is not accurate. phrsi·a and phrsa·e.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
The Book of Daniel was written in Biblical Aramaic. The similarity of the word pharisees and phrsi·a or phrsa·ea is obvious and it is striking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends
No, it isn't. Each is based on a 3 letter root and they share 2 of the 3 letters and are pronounced differently. Only once you transliterate them into English can you claim similarity. In their source languages the difference between p-r-s and p-r-sh is clear and obvious.
Wikipedia
Biblical Languages
Hebrew language
The texts were mainly written in Biblical Hebrew, with some portions (notably in Daniel and Ezra) in Biblical Aramaic. Biblical Hebrew, sometimes called Classical Hebrew, is an archaic form of the Hebrew language. The very first translation of the Hebrew Bible was into Greek. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_languages
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends
Not a change. As shown, a completely different word. Different root. And textual sources to show that other word's biblical presence.
I don't doubt that the word "p'rushi" has a different root from the word "phrsa·e." The question before us is, which word, "p'rushi" or "phrsa·e", was understood to be a reference to the group known as the pharisees in Jesus' time? The similarity of the Aramaic word for Persian, "phrsa·e," as used in The Book of Daniel, and Pharisees is undeniable. Perhaps it is just a coincidence that the Pharisees shared many beliefs with Persian Zoroastrianism which were not inherent in Talmudic Judaism.
No, the original words are in a different alphabet, and in that alphabet, the words are, as posted, פרסיא and הפרסי
No, it isn't. Each is based on a 3 letter root and they share 2 of the 3 letters and are pronounced differently. Only once you transliterate them into English can you claim similarity. In their source languages the difference between p-r-s and p-r-sh is clear and obvious.
Not a change. As shown, a completely different word. Different root. And textual sources to show that other word's biblical presence.
Orthodox wiki has this: Traditionally, the word Pharisee comes from the Hebrew פרושים prushim from פרוש parush, meaning "separated," that is, one who is separated for a life of purity. Some recent views suggest that the word "pharisee" may come from the Hebrew word parosim, meaning "specifier," that is, that they sought to specify the correct meaning of the Law of God to the people.
I had to search around a bit. The Jewish encyclopaedia seemed to have vanished from the Web. A page (Josephus on Pharisees) had been horribly interlarded with hostile Christian propaganda, though still calling itself 'The Jewish Encyclopaedia'(1). and another had the worst search facility that i ever saw. Other sources were blocked with demands to sign up or allow them to access my computer.
It was interesting (and even wryly amusing) that another (Gentile) source had a resume of Josephus on the Pharisees saying how he approved of them. Then it went onto the NT section and you'd think it was talking about a different group of people. Which of course it is. The Gospel picture of the Pharisees is an implacably hostile representation, Iin fact 'misrepresentation' is a more justified term.
(1) there was no origin link (which must take some doing) so there is no way to hunt these people down and Eliminate them.
The words of Jesus prove who he was because he spoke in a language that you do not know and you don't know that it was a legal verifiable language.
Your Opinion is that you would believe any religion above the bible because the bible writes all of history that you do not want to accept, and you would rather accept any other pagan religion above what the bible says is true.
I believe somebody NO DOUBT that every religion came from the same source, and you would rather have the original source be any other source but the bible because the bible is the main source, and the people of the bible are the original fathers of all religions....In my good opinion, but also that God told us that he has gone to every nation. Before Moses there were other Deliverers to other nations, God has always been in all the nations and he tells us this, he brought Israel from Egypt but he had done the same with other nations before Moses was born.
NOTHING can stand next to the written word and I have looked.
There is no other book to compare with the bible, and there are no people in history that can be compared with the people of the bible and their history.....
THERE IS no one that we can compare the Jews to, there have been no other people whose history and future was set down in concrete and then fulfilled. There is no other people to compare because no other people have followed God, no other people have been so hated for so many thousands of years, and no other people lost their land, their language and their kingdom to then regain their land, their language and their nation.
There isn't any other religions to compare the bible with any other written codex ANYWHERE, there isn't any other people whose past, present and future has been written down and fulfilled as the chosen people chosen to be refined in a fire to come out as gold.
This is why the bible is in debate, and why you are not in the paganism forum, or the Islam forum, or ANY OTHER FORUM.
Your debate is with a foundation when there are no other foundations to be built upon, and that is why Atheist MUST confront bible believers, nothing else compares.
There is no comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius
The words of Jesus prove who he was because he spoke in a language that you do not know and you don't know that it was a legal verifiable language.
Except that we don't have the words of Jesus. We have the words that anonymous other people who may have never even met Jesus, attributed to Jesus decades after Jesus is reputed to have been executed. Your beliefs are founded on a series of interconnected and unverifiable assumptions which lead to supposing that a corpse returned to life and subsequently flew away.
Except that the words for Persian shown in the Hebrew Interlinear translation of Daniel 6:22 are phrsi·a and phrsa·e. I didn't make that up. I would invite all interested parties to check it out for themselves. http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineI...OTpdf/dan6.pdf
You are therefore looking in the English representation and making a claim about the Hebrew/Aramaic words. Your quote is to the transliteration (not he translation, which reads "the Persian"). A transliteration takes words and represents them as they sound, but spelled in the letters of another alphabet. In English, the S is the letter of choice for more than one Hebrew letter and clearly, this allows people to conclude that if the English uses the same letter, the Hebrew does as well. But if I were to take the two English words "Roc" (the mythical beast) and "Rock" and transliterate them identically, it would not mean that, in the English, the words are at all related. The words in Daniel (6:29) are spelled with the letter samech. This root, pey-resh-samech is "Persia" in both Hebrew and Aramaic. The other word is spelled with a "shin" not a "samech" which doesn't even sound the same (the shin has a SH sound).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
In your original post (Post #41 of this string) you stated: "The Hebrew word for Persia is Paras (P-R-S) as seen in the scroll of Esther. Different spelling." But, as I have established, that is not accurate. phrsi·a and phrsa·e.
Again, you are trying to draw a connection between transliterations of words, not between words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
I don't doubt that the word "p'rushi" has a different root from the word "phrsa·e." The question before us is, which word, "p'rushi" or "phrsa·e", was understood to be a reference to the group known as the pharisees in Jesus' time?
The one that was actually spelled "prushi" and which is used in the Talmud to refer to that particular groups (I gave you a citation to that). Why would anyone use a word spelled differently?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
The similarity of the Aramaic word for Persian, "phrsa·e," as used in The Book of Daniel, and Pharisees is undeniable.
In a language where more words have a 3 letter root, seeing a similarity between 2 of the 3 letters is very common. It just doesn't mean anything. It isn't coincidence anymore than it is coincidence that "arc" and "ark" share 2 letters and one builds a boat using geometry.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
