Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-15-2024, 10:13 AM
 
Location: NMB, SC
43,058 posts, read 18,237,901 times
Reputation: 34937

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel View Post
No, it does not. It does not "cover most of the world."

In 2022, around 31.6 percent of the global population identify as Christian.

31.6 % is not "most" of anything.
I said "most of the world", not "most of the people".

It was about the spread of Christianity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-15-2024, 10:21 AM
 
Location: NMB, SC
43,058 posts, read 18,237,901 times
Reputation: 34937
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
Plagiarism and inserting things in the copying process was actually quite common in the ancient world, one might say it was the norm and is the first thing one should suspect when there's a break in continuity or change in tone or some distinctive phrase found in earlier writings from other authors. It is not just that skeptics are poised to undermine the text every chance they get; it is more that anyone knowledgable in ancient manuscripts should have this as a default thought.

Whatever rigor there was in the scribal process at times, I think human nature being what it is, it was pretty common for a copyist -- a relatively highly educated person who knew he was set apart from the common people and pretty much unaccountable to them (how would they critique his work -- they couldn't even read) -- to think they had an opportunity to tweak things here and there with impunity, and the temptation would have been considerable. Even when the master scribe or whatever had oversight, it wouldn't have been that hard to slip things past them. And if caught I doubt you'd be fired on the spot -- you don't just put out a help wanted ad in those days and put in a replacement scribe.
Advances in technology are discovering so much with those ancient scrolls.
Some were completely erased and written over as discovered by the latest infrared technology.

It seems to me the "story" not only was embellished but older documents edited to change, modify and add embellishments that men used as "proof" for what they taught.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2024, 11:20 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
19,973 posts, read 13,459,195 times
Reputation: 9918
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMSRetired View Post
It seems to me the "story" not only was embellished but older documents edited to change, modify and add embellishments that men used as "proof" for what they taught.
I have also read that sometimes marginal notes in an older manuscript migrated right into the text in later ones.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2024, 05:31 PM
 
22,152 posts, read 19,206,964 times
Reputation: 18282
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMSRetired View Post
I said "most of the world", not "most of the people".
It was about the spread of Christianity.
The same is true of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, paganism. Those religions are also found all over the world. Those religions have also spread all over the world.

rendering the statement effectively pointless or useless to say about any single religion. because it applies to, well, many many religions including the ones just named. It can just as easily be said that Buddhism "covers most of the world." That was the original phrase used. That Islam covers most of the world. That Judaism covers most of the world. That Hinduism covers most of the world.

Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-15-2024 at 05:56 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2024, 06:44 PM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,770 posts, read 24,277,952 times
Reputation: 32913
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel View Post
The same is true of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, paganism. Those religions are also found all over the world. Those religions have also spread all over the world.

rendering the statement effectively pointless or useless to say about any single religion. because it applies to, well, many many religions including the ones just named. It can just as easily be said that Buddhism "covers most of the world." That was the original phrase used. That Islam covers most of the world. That Judaism covers most of the world. That Hinduism covers most of the world.
Thank you, again!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2024, 08:16 PM
 
Location: NMB, SC
43,058 posts, read 18,237,901 times
Reputation: 34937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel View Post
The same is true of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, paganism. Those religions are also found all over the world. Those religions have also spread all over the world.

rendering the statement effectively pointless or useless to say about any single religion. because it applies to, well, many many religions including the ones just named. It can just as easily be said that Buddhism "covers most of the world." That was the original phrase used. That Islam covers most of the world. That Judaism covers most of the world. That Hinduism covers most of the world.
Well then- maybe that seed got planted multiple times

If one believes in a single creator then all religions are worshipping the same entity
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2024, 08:55 PM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,770 posts, read 24,277,952 times
Reputation: 32913
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMSRetired View Post
Well then- maybe that seed got planted multiple times

If one believes in a single creator then all religions are worshipping the same entity
Except that Buddhists don't believe in a creator god.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-15-2024, 09:42 PM
 
22,152 posts, read 19,206,964 times
Reputation: 18282
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMSRetired View Post
Well then- maybe that seed got planted multiple times. If one believes in a single creator then all religions are worshipping the same entity
i agree. we all come from the same Source.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2024, 08:32 AM
 
2,411 posts, read 1,445,126 times
Reputation: 479
.
So, from what I understand, and what I believe, and what I completely made up , what can be gleaned from my "Historical Jesus"


From what I gather, this is what Jesus taught.


Number One:


He preached a similar message to John, speaking concerning the arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven. He taught this kingdom would first be given (or first be seen by) to the poor in spirit. Jesus said happy are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. So in essence Jesus pointed to the poor and downhearted, the bottom of society, as being much better off in the long run than the rich, and the kings and queens of the world. So basically if you are poor, if you are mourning, if you are agonizing for right living to be rewarded, you are living the good life. Because the Kingdom is for you. Now the question I have with this, is this a unique teaching? Are there any other religious figures out there that taught something similar to this? (Basically its a good thing to be downtrodden)


Number Two:


The Historical Jesus taught to leave everything behind for the sake of the Kingdom. You see the Kingdom of God/Heaven can ultimately be seen as Yahweh's will. So the works of the Kingdom would take priority, over family and friends, over even an individual's own free will. So what are the works of the Kingdom? Its hard to say for sure in terms of the Historical Jesus, but painting a picture from the NT it had a lot to do with grace and mercy to others, even to one's own enemies.


Again the Kingdom is seen as God's will, and it was to take priority over everything else. All those who follow God's will and pursue His kingdom, they would become your new family. I mentioned how Jesus Himself would have left His family behind and pursue the Kingdom Himself, being the first example of His teaching. In all the Gospels we see tension between His brothers, and even His mother. We have the time Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem around the age of 12, and His parents anxiously searched for Him. When they found Him, He explained He was about His Father's (God) business and in His house. At that time, Jesus submitted Himself to His parents. Then in John's Gospel while at a wedding, Mary told Jesus they were about to run out of wine. Jesus responded and told her what that had to do with Him. While both of these examples fall outside the Historical Jesus inquiry, it just shows us the kind of tension Jesus had with His family because He wanted to be about the business of the Kingdom of Heaven. (and His family was just living an ordinary family's life)


So what do you think of this? Should Jesus be respected in His dedication to the works and message of the Kingdom? Do you think it was a respectable thing to leave family behind, and embrace outsiders, even enemies?



So again these are my thoughts, completely made up by me concerning the Historical Jesus. What do you think about these things? Let's discuss!!!

Last edited by Heavenese; 02-16-2024 at 08:42 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-16-2024, 09:42 AM
 
Location: Virginia
10,091 posts, read 6,424,617 times
Reputation: 27654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese View Post
.
So, from what I understand, and what I believe, and what I completely made up , what can be gleaned from my "Historical Jesus"


From what I gather, this is what Jesus taught.


Number One:


He preached a similar message to John, speaking concerning the arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven. He taught this kingdom would first be given (or first be seen by) to the poor in spirit. Jesus said happy are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. So in essence Jesus pointed to the poor and downhearted, the bottom of society, as being much better off in the long run than the rich, and the kings and queens of the world. So basically if you are poor, if you are mourning, if you are agonizing for right living to be rewarded, you are living the good life. Because the Kingdom is for you. Now the question I have with this, is this a unique teaching? Are there any other religious figures out there that taught something similar to this? (Basically its a good thing to be downtrodden)


Number Two:


The Historical Jesus taught to leave everything behind for the sake of the Kingdom. You see the Kingdom of God/Heaven can ultimately be seen as Yahweh's will. So the works of the Kingdom would take priority, over family and friends, over even an individual's own free will. So what are the works of the Kingdom? Its hard to say for sure in terms of the Historical Jesus, but painting a picture from the NT it had a lot to do with grace and mercy to others, even to one's own enemies.


Again the Kingdom is seen as God's will, and it was to take priority over everything else. All those who follow God's will and pursue His kingdom, they would become your new family. I mentioned how Jesus Himself would have left His family behind and pursue the Kingdom Himself, being the first example of His teaching. In all the Gospels we see tension between His brothers, and even His mother. We have the time Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem around the age of 12, and His parents anxiously searched for Him. When they found Him, He explained He was about His Father's (God) business and in His house. At that time, Jesus submitted Himself to His parents. Then in John's Gospel while at a wedding, Mary told Jesus they were about to run out of wine. Jesus responded and told her what that had to do with Him. While both of these examples fall outside the Historical Jesus inquiry, it just shows us the kind of tension Jesus had with His family because He wanted to be about the business of the Kingdom of Heaven. (and His family was just living an ordinary family's life)


So what do you think of this? Should Jesus be respected in His dedication to the works and message of the Kingdom? Do you think it was a respectable thing to leave family behind, and embrace outsiders, even enemies?



So again these are my thoughts, completely made up by me concerning the Historical Jesus. What do you think about these things? Let's discuss!!!
Not to be snarky, but what is the value/point in discussing your completely fabricated ideas about the so-called "historical' Jesus? Anyone could make up their own stories as well, as was likely done over the centuries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top