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.
If Jesus was God (Jewish Lord) and not the son of God, everything changes back to the Old Testament where the Lord was God. In short, if you want to know about the last days, read OT prophets. Much of OT prophesy is about Israel, and the most important events in the world have been happening in the Middle East where nations threaten Israel with complete destruction, just as Jewish prophets predicted.
There are ALOT of prophets out there! Just none that the media are interested in at the moment. They will be eventually. You're going to see and hear some great stuff from this generation.
We forgive you. In fact I am with Shirina here. There is a big, fat, political agenda. The OT prophets were using successes to bolster the authority of YHWH - and using the defeats to do the same.
The OT prophets were a handful of men in a small area of the world.
Quote:
Jesus did not speak or teach as in the gospels. That is an invention of Greek Christians determined to hi- jack God worship from Judaism.
Huh? We have no clue what exactly Jesus said 100%, but it wasn't "the Greeks." Most Christians were in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) Egypt, and Levant at the time.
Quote:
Buddha too - or his people, the Kshatrya caste - had an agenda: to hi - jack the right to make merit from the Brahmin caste.
Huh, Buddha left his caste and title and joined the Sramana ascetics. He never reclaimed his title or wanted anything to do with politics, nor did Jesus.
And if preaching being apolitical is a political position itself, then atheism must be a religious position also.
Quote:
Lao Tzu...well, he might not have given a ratbut for politics (though a need to break free of the structured social rites and customs of China comes close). But Confucius and Mengtse, they had political agendas all right.
Yes, Confucius has a political agenda, but Lao Tzu was not Confucius and his religion was completely different.
The fact is only a few prophets really had or wanted political power, like Zoroaster who stayed in his priestly family and had the patronage of a king in his lifetime, or Mohammad who was the ruler of the Arabs. If their words were used to justify political positions later that has nothing to do with them. If they are responsible for the politics that came from their words, than Charles Darwin is responsible for the scientific racism policies that grew out of his work long after he was dead.
All very true. And yes, it's an unexamined assumption.
At a glance, I see that the Canon of Trent includes I and II Maccabees which is absent from most protestant Bibles, so even that's not really 100% observed / accepted.
Truth be told, the Council of Trent happened because of the Protestant Reformation. Suddenly there were a lot of folks denouncing the Roman Catholic Church and using scripture to demonstrate that the RCC was hopelessly corrupt. So the RCC took the opportunity to officially establish the canon of scripture.
It should surprise nobody that the Protestants didn't agree with them on the canon. In the end, the Old Testament comes down to the Greek Septuagint Canon vs the later Jewish canon which eliminated several books. The Greek Septuagint was the de facto (and unofficial) canon during the life of Jesus. The Roman Catholic Church recognizes books Septuagint, more or less. The Protestants eliminate several books from the OT because the Jews themselves eventually eliminated them. So the Protestants fall in line 100% with the Jewish OT canon, though most are blissfully unaware of that fact.
There no disagreement between RCC and Protestants over the canon of the New Testament.
Quote:
At least the date of the Council of Trent somewhat coincides with the invention of the printing press and the advent of Wycliffe and others who got the trend of translating scriptures into the common vernacular off the ground. However, my guess is that anyone claiming to be an actual prophet in the mid 1500s would be burned at the stake as a heretic, likely as not, so even then, they must have placed the miraculous and prophetic offices safely and tidily in their own distant past.
The printing press was invented in 1439. The Council of Trent happened between 1545 and 1563, so over 100 years later. Wycliffe was certainly earlier than the printing press. Martin Luther came later than the printing press. Had it not been for the existence of the printing press, Luther's movement may have died out.
Agreed that anyone claiming to be a prophet in those days or today would be seen as a raving lunatic. Truth be told, most of the Old Testament prophets were also seen as nut-jobs. If you wanted to identify a modern day prophet, I expect you'd look for somebody who is widely rejected by most. They obviously wouldn't be guys like Reverend Jones and his delicious Kool Aid. But it is unlikely that an honest to goodness real prophet would be widely accepted by most. History seems to indicate that you have to be dead for a few centuries before you're considered legit.
If Jesus was God (Jewish Lord) and not the son of God, everything changes back to the Old Testament where the Lord was God. In short, if you want to know about the last days, read OT prophets. Much of OT prophesy is about Israel, and the most important events in the world have been happening in the Middle East where nations threaten Israel with complete destruction, just as Jewish prophets predicted.
Jesus IS God(John 1:1) and is the Son of God(Rom 1:4) and is a member of the Godhead(1John 5:7) 3 members to 1 God. The Lord is his name(Isa 42:8). The name that will save you from your sins is the Lord Jesus Christ, if you believe on Him(Rom 10:9-13).
Plenty of prophecy in the NT also. If you are someone wanting to learn more about God a good place to start would be the Gospel of John.
Jesus IS God(John 1:1) and is the Son of God(Rom 1:4) and is a member of the Godhead(1John 5:7) 3 members to 1 God. The Lord is his name(Isa 42:8). The name that will save you from your sins is the Lord Jesus Christ, if you believe on Him(Rom 10:9-13).
Plenty of prophecy in the NT also. If you are someone wanting to learn more about God a good place to start would be the Gospel of John.
I don't believe in the Godhead. I believe God is a duality, and there is no holy spirit, only the holiness of God. The holy spirit was invented by humans to make themselves feel holy. There are no prophesies in the NT. The last prophets were Jewish in Old Testament times. Jesus cannot be considered to be a prophet because he was God.
Much of the gospels should be ignored inasmuch as they proclaim Jesus to be the son of God. I state that because I believe Jesus was God and not his son. If you take the son of God out of the New Testament it falls apart. In short, Christianity doesn't replace Judaism. Judaism is God's true religion.
The OT prophets were a handful of men in a small area of the world.
Yes, the OT prophets were. But through Christianity becoming the state religion of Rome, their influence is enormous. but that's not the point. The point is that the OT prophets were using religion in a way that was political.
Quote:
Huh? We have no clue what exactly Jesus said 100%, but it wasn't "the Greeks." Most Christians were in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) Egypt, and Levant at the time.
And that is probably where the gospels we have today were written as the ones we don't have were often written in Egypt - by Greek Christians. I believe that none (or nearly) of the Gospel chat can really be taken as the words of the historic Jesus and is all the writing of Greek Pauline Christians. I can give a link to the post on the 'Q' thread where I argue the case for this contention.
Paul's conversion was, I think political in nature, and one could say the Greek Christian follow -on was, too. It was intended to wrest God -worship from Judaism and give it to the gentiles. This is just more of the Greek -Jewish wrangling that was going on in Egypt.
Quote:
Huh, Buddha left his caste and title and joined the Sramana ascetics. He never reclaimed his title or wanted anything to do with politics, nor did Jesus.
Whether buddha left his caste or not, what the scriptures show is his constantly dispossessing Brahmins of wisdom, the gods and the right to make merit. If, as I suspect, there was no such person and the religion was devised by a committee of Kshatryas, tired of deferring to Brahminism, then political is what it was.
Quote:
And if preaching being apolitical is a political position itself, then atheism must be a religious position also.
It is. In that atheism is not a religion, nor is it political, but it has a political knock -on effect, which is the dispossession (in time) of the religious and their views having a grop on our society, laws and politics.
Quote:
Yes, Confucius has a political agenda, but Lao Tzu was not Confucius and his religion was completely different.
But, after thinking about it, having a political knock- on effect, while not directed to top politicians as Confucius did.
Quote:
The fact is only a few prophets really had or wanted political power, like Zoroaster who stayed in his priestly family and had the patronage of a king in his lifetime, or Mohammad who was the ruler of the Arabs. If their words were used to justify political positions later that has nothing to do with them. If they are responsible for the politics that came from their words, than Charles Darwin is responsible for the scientific racism policies that grew out of his work long after he was dead.
A poor analogy. Science is a-political. It does not make claims about society or morals or law. It only discovers facts. Religion does the opposite.
Yes, the OT prophets were. But through Christianity becoming the state religion of Rome, their influence is enormous. but that's not the point. The point is that the OT prophets were using religion in a way that was political.
Yes, but again, they were only a handful of prophets.
Quote:
And that is probably where the gospels we have today were written as the ones we don't have were often written in Egypt - by Greek Christians. I believe that none (or nearly) of the Gospel chat can really be taken as the words of the historic Jesus and is all the writing of Greek Pauline Christians. I can give a link to the post on the 'Q' thread where I argue the case for this contention.
Paul's conversion was, I think political in nature, and one could say the Greek Christian follow -on was, too. It was intended to wrest God -worship from Judaism and give it to the gentiles. This is just more of the Greek -Jewish wrangling that was going on in Egypt.
First, I will NEVER claim that the Gospels were first hand accounts or are factually 100% accurate. Second, the Gospels had many different messages and many different ideas. The Greeks did NOT write them, but the Romans did ban and burn most of them (see Nag Hammadi)
Quote:
Whether buddha left his caste or not, what the scriptures show is his constantly dispossessing Brahmins of wisdom, the gods and the right to make merit. If, as I suspect, there was no such person and the religion was devised by a committee of Kshatryas, tired of deferring to Brahminism, then political is what it was.
Yes, he didn't like politics and the politics of religion and sought religion to be apolitical. That is kind of what I'm saying...
Quote:
It is. In that atheism is not a religion, nor is it political, but it has a political knock -on effect, which is the dispossession (in time) of the religious and their views having a grop on our society, laws and politics.
And being apolitical is also kind of moving people away from politics, which is what most prophets have done or tried to do.
Quote:
But, after thinking about it, having a political knock- on effect, while not directed to top politicians as Confucius did.
How the hell could Lao Tzu (if he ever existed) have any intentional effect on politics if he wasn't around to do so? What, Jedi minds tricks from wherever the hell he went or something?
Quote:
A poor analogy. Science is a-political. It does not make claims about society or morals or law. It only discovers facts. Religion does the opposite.
"Facts" are a term I have trouble with and philosophers have been debating what a "fact" is for ages, but that is another matter.
Bottom line is that most prophets talked to people on how to live their lives and rarely said "x.y. and z should be the legal law of the land and not A.B.C." Even Jesus was not a fan of politics, and never really preached anything political aside from paying taxes.
Yes, people have passed laws based on religious teachings, but people have also passed laws based on science (and some pretty evil ones too in the name of science, I might add: Eugenics: Compulsory Sterilization in 50 American States) Just as science does not say "this should be a law" religion and prophets have very rarely said "this should be the law of the land." "Laws" in religion most often refer to the laws that the believers live by, and not what is imposed on them by any authority with a monopoly on "legitimate" use of force (i.e., a government)
Blaming religion or prophets for people passing laws against things like porn is like blaming science for people passing Eugenics laws. Unless a prophet comes out and says "x.y.z. should be how a state is governed" the prophet is not political, and only a few prophets (the OT, Mohammad) have done so.
1 Corinthians 13:9-13 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
I believe "that which is perfect" is speaking to the completed canon of scriptures; Perfect meaning complete. I know many interpret "that which is perfect" to be a reference to the second coming of Jesus Christ but, the passage is talking about an object. The article is neutral. Also historically we do see a passing away of the sign gifts towards the completion of the scriptures in about 90 AD.
Yes, but again, they were only a handful of prophets.
First, I will NEVER claim that the Gospels were first hand accounts or are factually 100% accurate. Second, the Gospels had many different messages and many different ideas. The Greeks did NOT write them, but the Romans did ban and burn most of them (see Nag Hammadi)
Yes, he didn't like politics and the politics of religion and sought religion to be apolitical. That is kind of what I'm saying...
And being apolitical is also kind of moving people away from politics, which is what most prophets have done or tried to do.
How the hell could Lao Tzu (if he ever existed) have any intentional effect on politics if he wasn't around to do so? What, Jedi minds tricks from wherever the hell he went or something?
"Facts" are a term I have trouble with and philosophers have been debating what a "fact" is for ages, but that is another matter.
Bottom line is that most prophets talked to people on how to live their lives and rarely said "x.y. and z should be the legal law of the land and not A.B.C." Even Jesus was not a fan of politics, and never really preached anything political aside from paying taxes.
Yes, people have passed laws based on religious teachings, but people have also passed laws based on science (and some pretty evil ones too in the name of science, I might add: Eugenics: Compulsory Sterilization in 50 American States) Just as science does not say "this should be a law" religion and prophets have very rarely said "this should be the law of the land." "Laws" in religion most often refer to the laws that the believers live by, and not what is imposed on them by any authority with a monopoly on "legitimate" use of force (i.e., a government)
Blaming religion or prophets for people passing laws against things like porn is like blaming science for people passing Eugenics laws. Unless a prophet comes out and says "x.y.z. should be how a state is governed" the prophet is not political, and only a few prophets (the OT, Mohammad) have done so.
I'm not sure how we got onto this, but I'd say that a political angle is not the same as overt political agenda and prophets are not always founders of religion and founders of religion are not always prophets. I don't think of Buddha as a prophet, yet I think that the point of Buddhism might have been political rather than helping people. After all, the rebirth and merit -making went on as before. The difference is that it was the Sangha making the merit and not the Brahmins.
If you want to look at the other examples, I suppose we can, but irrelevancies like Lao Tsu being dead (presumably there was a time when he wasn't) just looks like tap -dancing around the issue trying to win irrelevant points and pretend they are relevant.
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.
In fact I am with Shirina here. There is a big, fat, political agenda. The OT prophets were using successes to bolster the authority of YHWH - and using the defeats to do the same. 
Huh, Buddha left his caste and title and joined the Sramana ascetics. He never reclaimed his title or wanted anything to do with politics, nor did Jesus. 
