Matthew 6:5-6: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men....when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret...."
I'm pretty sure it was Jesus quoted here.
seems he is clearly stating that people shouldn't go to church. or pray in church anyway. so, I'm kind of wondering how people who go to church deal with this contradiction.
i think he was speaking more of the people who shove it on others and make it this big spectacle
'that they may be seen....'
but if god is everywhere and everything how the fuck can it be a male??
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Why cant anyone point to a historical source that speaks of "Jesus of Nazareth".
Because none exists. No historical record exists of any kind that points to Jesus having lived when he is supposed to have lived. The earliest record was written some 50 years after his supposed death.
A provocative thesis that the historical Jesus was connected to the royal 18th dynasty of Egypt.
• Contends that Jesus, Joshua, and Tutankhamun were the same person.
• Provides evidence from church documentation, the Koran, the Talmud, and archaeology that the Messiah came more than a millennium before the first century C.E.
• Shows that Christianity evolved from Essene teachings.
Although it is commonly believed that Jesus lived during the first century C.E., there is no concrete evidence to support this fact from the Roman and Jewish historians who would have been his contemporaries. The Gospel writers themselves were of a later generation, and many accounts recorded in the Old Testament and Talmudic commentary refer to the coming of the Messiah as an event that had already occurred.
Using the evidence available from archaeology, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Koran, the Talmud, and biblical sources, Ahmed Osman provides a compelling case that both Jesus and Joshua were one and the same--a belief echoed by the early Church Fathers--and that this person was likewise the pharaoh Tutankhamun, who ruled Egypt between 1361 and 1352 B.C.E. and was regarded as the spiritual son of God. Osman contends that the Essene Christians--who followed Jesus' teachings in secret after his murder--only came into the open following the execution of their prophet John the Baptist by Herod, many centuries later. Yet it was also the Essenes who, following the death of Tutankhamun and his father Akhenaten (Moses), secretly kept the monotheistic religion of Egypt alive. The Essenes believed themselves to be the people of the New Covenant established between their Lord and themselves by the Teacher of Righteousness, who was murdered by a wicked priest. The Dead Sea Scrolls support Osman's contention that this Teacher of Righteousness was in fact Jesus.'
someone came up with some pretty good advice back in the day. take the church and the supernatural out of the equation and he seems like a good guy. whatever his name was.
someone came up with some pretty good advice back in the day. take the church and the supernatural out of the equation and he seems like a good guy. whatever his name was.
That depends on whether he actually ever existed in the first place.
Either way, there have been many people like him down through the ages. In fact, I expect he would have been nothing out of the ordinary during the period of time when he supposedly lived.
the book Byrnzie suggested may sounds nuts, but i always find that stuff interesting because all the world religions seem to follow similar patterns anyway, so its not too nuts, at face value, to hypothesize that it could be one guy. I dont believe it, but interesting idea nonetheless.
I liken it to the development of myths/legends/folklore/mysticism in different countries. Trace the origins of various monsters, ghouls, druids, etc back far enough and they all came from similar strands, that were then developed and adapted per the culture&place of the time. Its not impossible that the story of Jesus was similarly skewed at somepoint.
I realise that comparison will probably offend the religious posters out there, but you know what i mean.
Why cant anyone point to a historical source that speaks of "Jesus of Nazareth".
Because none exists. No historical record exists of any kind that points to Jesus having lived when he is supposed to have lived. The earliest record was written some 50 years after his supposed death.
pardon me for asking, but just where did you receive you're history egree because you're freaking brilliant!
All sarcasm aside, heres a pretty good article. If you notice, they use primarily nonchristian, even hostile sources. The "Jesus didn't exist" argument is truly DEAD. Has been dead, will always be dead. Look, i'm not asking you to adopt a faith in Jesus divinity. What i am ENCOURAGING, for your sake, is that in the name of personal integrity and self-respect, you give up on an argument that any credible historian gave up on long ago.
Wow - talk about poor reading comprehension in the OP!
It's obvious that passage is about making a great show of being religious as opposed to being truly religious. He was saying that they were hypocrites because they liked to be seen by people fasting and praying- in other words they were showing off - instead of focusing on really worshipping. He's not saying not to go to church, but rather for the right reasons and not just to show off in front of people.
while that is all very nice and comfortably fits into current religious practices, the passage actually directly states that...
"when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret..."
when you pray.
from an outside perspective (where I am) its hard to read anything into the passage, except what it actually states. this is one of the few religious statements, in my experience, that is very clear and direct.
perhaps it's also, pray within yourself not outloud. Not literally in a closet.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
A provocative thesis that the historical Jesus was connected to the royal 18th dynasty of Egypt.
• Contends that Jesus, Joshua, and Tutankhamun were the same person.
• Provides evidence from church documentation, the Koran, the Talmud, and archaeology that the Messiah came more than a millennium before the first century C.E.
• Shows that Christianity evolved from Essene teachings.
Although it is commonly believed that Jesus lived during the first century C.E., there is no concrete evidence to support this fact from the Roman and Jewish historians who would have been his contemporaries. The Gospel writers themselves were of a later generation, and many accounts recorded in the Old Testament and Talmudic commentary refer to the coming of the Messiah as an event that had already occurred.
Using the evidence available from archaeology, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Koran, the Talmud, and biblical sources, Ahmed Osman provides a compelling case that both Jesus and Joshua were one and the same--a belief echoed by the early Church Fathers--and that this person was likewise the pharaoh Tutankhamun, who ruled Egypt between 1361 and 1352 B.C.E. and was regarded as the spiritual son of God. Osman contends that the Essene Christians--who followed Jesus' teachings in secret after his murder--only came into the open following the execution of their prophet John the Baptist by Herod, many centuries later. Yet it was also the Essenes who, following the death of Tutankhamun and his father Akhenaten (Moses), secretly kept the monotheistic religion of Egypt alive. The Essenes believed themselves to be the people of the New Covenant established between their Lord and themselves by the Teacher of Righteousness, who was murdered by a wicked priest. The Dead Sea Scrolls support Osman's contention that this Teacher of Righteousness was in fact Jesus.'
Wow - talk about poor reading comprehension in the OP!
It's obvious that passage is about making a great show of being religious as opposed to being truly religious. He was saying that they were hypocrites because they liked to be seen by people fasting and praying- in other words they were showing off - instead of focusing on really worshipping. He's not saying not to go to church, but rather for the right reasons and not just to show off in front of people.
while that is all very nice and comfortably fits into current religious practices, the passage actually directly states that...
"when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret..."
when you pray.
from an outside perspective (where I am) its hard to read anything into the passage, except what it actually states. this is one of the few religious statements, in my experience, that is very clear and direct.
perhaps it's also, pray within yourself not outloud. Not literally in a closet.
So how do we go about picking and choosing which passages of the Bible are to be taken literally and which to take figuratively?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
So how do we go about picking and choosing which passages of the Bible are to be taken literally and which to take figuratively?
its called literacy.
When you read anything else, i imagine, you can tell when the author is employing metaphor or simile and when the author is being straightforward and literal. why is it any different? Its generally pretty obvious to anyone above a fifth or sixth grade reading level.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
When you read anything else, i imagine, you can tell when the author is employing metaphor or simile and when the author is being straightforward and literal. why is it any different? Its generally pretty obvious to anyone above a fifth or sixth grade reading level.
Yes I bet as a 6th grader you could decipher the OP passage "pretty easily".. forget that many in your country couldn't even locate America on an atlas.. if you go back to the days the bible was written what exactly was the percentage of people that were capable of reading?
When you read anything else, i imagine, you can tell when the author is employing metaphor or simile and when the author is being straightforward and literal. why is it any different? Its generally pretty obvious to anyone above a fifth or sixth grade reading level.
Yes I bet as a 6th grader you could decipher the OP passage "pretty easily".. forget that many in your country couldn't even locate America on an atlas.. if you go back to the days the bible was written what exactly was the percentage of people that were capable of reading?
????
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
So how do we go about picking and choosing which passages of the Bible are to be taken literally and which to take figuratively?
its called literacy.
When you read anything else, i imagine, you can tell when the author is employing metaphor or simile and when the author is being straightforward and literal. why is it any different? Its generally pretty obvious to anyone above a fifth or sixth grade reading level.
Hardly. The passages about raping or buying a wife are pretty straightforward and literal, as are the passages about the proper ways to take slaves. But you don't argue for us to literally adopt them.
Hardly. The passages about raping or buying a wife are pretty straightforward and literal, as are the passages about the proper ways to take slaves. But you don't argue for us to literally adopt them.
[/quote][/quote]
The point was simply that the difference between literal and figurative language is, in most cases, easily discernible. When someone says "its raining cats and dogs", you don't look at them like they're crazy and run and check out the window for falling golden retrievers.
You're getting into theology which i pledged to stay out of, at least publicly, in this forum quite some time ago.
Also, BTW, i haven't argued for you to adopt anything.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Hardly. The passages about raping or buying a wife are pretty straightforward and literal, as are the passages about the proper ways to take slaves. But you don't argue for us to literally adopt them.
The point was simply that the difference between literal and figurative language is, in most cases, easily discernible. When someone says "its raining cats and dogs", you don't look at them like they're crazy and run and check out the window for falling golden retrievers.
You're getting into theology which i pledged to stay out of, at least publicly, in this forum quite some time ago.
Also, BTW, i haven't argued for you to adopt anything.
The passage we're talking about here hardly falls into the 'cats and dogs' arena of clarity. Perhaps it reads a bit hyperbolic, but reading it as condemning public prayer in a church is hardly some sort of absurd stretch. It's a perfectly legit and reasonable interpretation. Especially when you put it in the context of Jesus' repeated attacks on the church authority, hypocrisy, and other similar subjects.
The passage we're talking about here hardly falls into the 'cats and dogs' arena of clarity. Perhaps it reads a bit hyperbolic, but reading it as condemning public prayer in a church is hardly some sort of absurd stretch. It's a perfectly legit and reasonable interpretation. Especially when you put it in the context of Jesus' repeated attacks on the church authority, hypocrisy, and other similar subjects.
exactly the point of the thread.
I believe there was a spiritual movement, that had/has some great ideas. ideas certain proponents didn't want corrupted in any sort of institution.
they were trying to prevent stupid shit like the crusades and the spanish inquisition and suicide bombings and jehovas witnesses.
its wasn;'t supposed to be about authority, its an individual thing.
they were trying to prevent stupid shit like the crusades and the spanish inquisition and suicide bombings and jehovas witnesses.
its wasn;'t supposed to be about authority, its an individual thing.
Because thats EXACTLY what happens in churches on Sunday. Every Sunday morning i get up, have a cup of coffee, Don a fake beard and dark glasses, and go off to my top secret meeting to plot the next inquisition and lay the groundwork for a round of suicide bombings. :roll:
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Why cant anyone point to a historical source that speaks of "Jesus of Nazareth".
Because none exists. No historical record exists of any kind that points to Jesus having lived when he is supposed to have lived. The earliest record was written some 50 years after his supposed death.
pardon me for asking, but just where did you receive you're history egree because you're freaking brilliant!
All sarcasm aside, heres a pretty good article. If you notice, they use primarily nonchristian, even hostile sources. The "Jesus didn't exist" argument is truly DEAD. Has been dead, will always be dead. Look, i'm not asking you to adopt a faith in Jesus divinity. What i am ENCOURAGING, for your sake, is that in the name of personal integrity and self-respect, you give up on an argument that any credible historian gave up on long ago.
No contemporary record of any kind exists which mentions Jesus. Period. There were two mentions of him from a couple of books contemporaneous with the period up to 33A.D but the mentions of Jesus have both been proven to have been later interpolations by the early Church fathers, i.e fakes.
And the webpage you provide a link to just confirms this, albeit with a load of wishy-washy suppositions and conjecture thrown into the mix.
No contemporary record of any kind exists which mentions Jesus. Period. There were two mentions of him from a couple of books contemporaneous with the period up to 33A.D but the mentions of Jesus have both been proven to have been later interpolations by the early Church fathers, i.e fakes.
And the webpage you provide a link to just confirms this, albeit with a load of wishy-washy suppositions and conjecture thrown into the mix.
Still, nice try.
Let me ask you this. If you were to die today, how much CONTEMPORARY HISTORICAL reference would there be to prove YOU ever existed? Now take away legal documents, photographs, and archived internet message board postings that didn't exist between one and 33 A.D, and what will you be left with? So die today, and tomorrow, you never existed according to your own hypothesis. Right? i know when i die, it will take about an hour and a half before my own wife forgets i ever lived. Are you getting my point. Historians do not not write about people they deem insignificant by historical standards. Jesus was a poor man. A carpenter. Not necessarily someone historians of the day would likely pay much attention to. Jesus' actual ministry lasted, maybe, three years and he never really traveled out of regional Palestine. There was no CNN. Jesus fame, if one chooses to call it that was posthumous and then, there is more evidence for the existence of an historical Jesus than there is for almost any other historical figure of antiquity. Most of whom no one ever questions the true existence of.
So, still, nice try.
How about this? Point to ME one CREDENTIALED, CREDIBLE, UNBIASED, and SCHOLARLY HISTORIAN, who lends any credibility to the Jesus never really existed" argument.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
No contemporary record of any kind exists which mentions Jesus. Period. There were two mentions of him from a couple of books contemporaneous with the period up to 33A.D but the mentions of Jesus have both been proven to have been later interpolations by the early Church fathers, i.e fakes.
And the webpage you provide a link to just confirms this, albeit with a load of wishy-washy suppositions and conjecture thrown into the mix.
Still, nice try.
Let me ask you this. If you were to die today, how much CONTEMPORARY HISTORICAL reference would there be to prove YOU ever existed? Now take away legal documents, photographs, and archived internet message board postings that didn't exist between one and 33 A.D, and what will you be left with? So die today, and tomorrow, you never existed according to your own hypothesis. Right? i know when i die, it will take about an hour and a half before my own wife forgets i ever lived. Are you getting my point. Historians do not not write about people they deem insignificant by historical standards. Jesus was a poor man. A carpenter. Not necessarily someone historians of the day would likely pay much attention to. Jesus' actual ministry lasted, maybe, three years and he never really traveled out of regional Palestine. There was no CNN. Jesus fame, if one chooses to call it that was posthumous and then, there is more evidence for the existence of an historical Jesus than there is for almost any other historical figure of antiquity. Most of whom no one ever questions the true existence of.
So, still, nice try.
How about this? Point to ME one CREDENTIALED, CREDIBLE, UNBIASED, and SCHOLARLY HISTORIAN, who lends any credibility to the Jesus never really existed" argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus
'The works of Josephus provide crucial information about the First Jewish-Roman War and are also important literary source material for understanding the context of the Dead Sea Scrolls and post-Second-Temple Judaism. Josephan scholarship in the 19th and early 20th century became focused on Josephus' relationship to the sect of the Pharisees. He was consistently portrayed as a member of the sect, but nevertheless viewed as a villainous traitor to his own nation — a view which became known as the classical concept of Josephus. In the mid 20th century, this view was challenged by a new generation of scholars who formulated the modern concept of Josephus, still considering him a Pharisee but restoring his reputation in part as patriot and a historian of some standing. Scholarship post-1990 sought to move scholarly perceptions forward by demonstrating that Josephus was not a Pharisee but an orthodox Aristocrat-Priest who became part of the Temple Establishment as a matter of deference, and not willing association (cf. Steve Mason 1991).
Josephus includes information about individuals, groups, customs and geographical places. His writings provide a significant, extra-Biblical account of the post-Exilic period of the Maccabees, the Hasmonean dynasty, and the rise of Herod the Great. He makes references to the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and to such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and a disputed reference to Jesus. He is an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism (and, thus, the context of early Christianity).
A careful reading of Josephus' writings allowed Ehud Netzer, an archaeologist from Hebrew University, to discover the location of Herod's Tomb, after a search of 35 years — above aqueducts and pools, at a flattened, desert site, halfway up the hill to the Herodium, 12 kilometers south of Jerusalem — exactly where it should have been, according to Josephus's writings...'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_o ... _Flavianum
'..The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it was at a minimum embellishment by early Christian scribes, if not a forgery. The other passage simply mentions Jesus as the brother of James, also known as James the Just. Most scholars consider this passage genuine,[1] but its authenticity has been disputed by Emil Schürer as well by several recent popular writers.
Josephus' other major work, The Jewish War, makes no mention of Jesus.
How about this? Point to ME one CREDENTIALED, CREDIBLE, UNBIASED, and SCHOLARLY HISTORIAN, who lends any credibility to the Jesus never really existed" argument.
Doherty, Earl, "The Jesus Puzzle," Canadian Humanist Publications, 1999
Romer, John, "Testament : The Bible and History," Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1988
Schonfield, Hugh Joseph, "A History of Biblical Literature," New American Library, 1962
Spong, Bishop Shelby, "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism," HarperSanFrancisco, 1991
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Osman
'Born in Cairo in 1934, Osman was a law student at Cairo University before becoming a journalist. He moved to London in 1964. He became interested in possible links between the Bible and recent archaeological discoveries in Egypt, looking for possible reasons for the historical tension between Egypt and Israel. His first theory was that Joseph was the father-in-law of Amenhotep III, Yuya. In 1987 this claim provided the basis for his first book, Stranger in the Valley of the Kings.
Osman identified the Semitic-born Egyptian official Joseph with the Egyptian official Yuya, and asserted the identification of Hebrew liberator Moses with the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten. Ahmed Osman has even claimed that Moses and Akhenaten were the same person, supporting his belief by interpreting aspects of biblical and Egyptian history. He alleges that Atenism can be considered monotheistic and related to Judaism, and includes other similarities, including a ban on idol worship and the similarity of the name Aten to the Hebrew Adon, or "Lord". This would mesh with Osman's other claim that Akhenaten's maternal grandfather Yuya was the same person as the Biblical Joseph.
Osman's positions are in conflict with some of Egyptology mainstream beliefs and parts of the conventional Egyptian chronology. Some Egyptologists have gone as far as rejecting them as unacademic conjecture.[1][2]Donald Redford wrote a scathing review of Stranger in the Valley of the Kings for BAR.[3] Osman states that the reason mainstream Egyptologists do not accept his theories and the theories of others is because, "Egyptologists have established their careers on their interpretations", and that to accept other theories could give them less authority.[1]'
Comments
i think he was speaking more of the people who shove it on others and make it this big spectacle
'that they may be seen....'
but if god is everywhere and everything how the fuck can it be a male??
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Because none exists. No historical record exists of any kind that points to Jesus having lived when he is supposed to have lived. The earliest record was written some 50 years after his supposed death.
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-House-Phara ... 361&sr=8-2
A provocative thesis that the historical Jesus was connected to the royal 18th dynasty of Egypt.
• Contends that Jesus, Joshua, and Tutankhamun were the same person.
• Provides evidence from church documentation, the Koran, the Talmud, and archaeology that the Messiah came more than a millennium before the first century C.E.
• Shows that Christianity evolved from Essene teachings.
Although it is commonly believed that Jesus lived during the first century C.E., there is no concrete evidence to support this fact from the Roman and Jewish historians who would have been his contemporaries. The Gospel writers themselves were of a later generation, and many accounts recorded in the Old Testament and Talmudic commentary refer to the coming of the Messiah as an event that had already occurred.
Using the evidence available from archaeology, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Koran, the Talmud, and biblical sources, Ahmed Osman provides a compelling case that both Jesus and Joshua were one and the same--a belief echoed by the early Church Fathers--and that this person was likewise the pharaoh Tutankhamun, who ruled Egypt between 1361 and 1352 B.C.E. and was regarded as the spiritual son of God. Osman contends that the Essene Christians--who followed Jesus' teachings in secret after his murder--only came into the open following the execution of their prophet John the Baptist by Herod, many centuries later. Yet it was also the Essenes who, following the death of Tutankhamun and his father Akhenaten (Moses), secretly kept the monotheistic religion of Egypt alive. The Essenes believed themselves to be the people of the New Covenant established between their Lord and themselves by the Teacher of Righteousness, who was murdered by a wicked priest. The Dead Sea Scrolls support Osman's contention that this Teacher of Righteousness was in fact Jesus.'
someone came up with some pretty good advice back in the day. take the church and the supernatural out of the equation and he seems like a good guy. whatever his name was.
That depends on whether he actually ever existed in the first place.
Either way, there have been many people like him down through the ages. In fact, I expect he would have been nothing out of the ordinary during the period of time when he supposedly lived.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS_Uvg56U_o
the book Byrnzie suggested may sounds nuts, but i always find that stuff interesting because all the world religions seem to follow similar patterns anyway, so its not too nuts, at face value, to hypothesize that it could be one guy. I dont believe it, but interesting idea nonetheless.
I liken it to the development of myths/legends/folklore/mysticism in different countries. Trace the origins of various monsters, ghouls, druids, etc back far enough and they all came from similar strands, that were then developed and adapted per the culture&place of the time. Its not impossible that the story of Jesus was similarly skewed at somepoint.
I realise that comparison will probably offend the religious posters out there, but you know what i mean.
All sarcasm aside, heres a pretty good article. If you notice, they use primarily nonchristian, even hostile sources. The "Jesus didn't exist" argument is truly DEAD. Has been dead, will always be dead. Look, i'm not asking you to adopt a faith in Jesus divinity. What i am ENCOURAGING, for your sake, is that in the name of personal integrity and self-respect, you give up on an argument that any credible historian gave up on long ago.
http://www.y-jesus.com/bornid_1.php
perhaps it's also, pray within yourself not outloud. Not literally in a closet.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
So how do we go about picking and choosing which passages of the Bible are to be taken literally and which to take figuratively?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
its called literacy.
When you read anything else, i imagine, you can tell when the author is employing metaphor or simile and when the author is being straightforward and literal. why is it any different? Its generally pretty obvious to anyone above a fifth or sixth grade reading level.
Yes I bet as a 6th grader you could decipher the OP passage "pretty easily".. forget that many in your country couldn't even locate America on an atlas.. if you go back to the days the bible was written what exactly was the percentage of people that were capable of reading?
????
Hardly. The passages about raping or buying a wife are pretty straightforward and literal, as are the passages about the proper ways to take slaves. But you don't argue for us to literally adopt them.
The point was simply that the difference between literal and figurative language is, in most cases, easily discernible. When someone says "its raining cats and dogs", you don't look at them like they're crazy and run and check out the window for falling golden retrievers.
You're getting into theology which i pledged to stay out of, at least publicly, in this forum quite some time ago.
Also, BTW, i haven't argued for you to adopt anything.
The passage we're talking about here hardly falls into the 'cats and dogs' arena of clarity. Perhaps it reads a bit hyperbolic, but reading it as condemning public prayer in a church is hardly some sort of absurd stretch. It's a perfectly legit and reasonable interpretation. Especially when you put it in the context of Jesus' repeated attacks on the church authority, hypocrisy, and other similar subjects.
exactly the point of the thread.
I believe there was a spiritual movement, that had/has some great ideas. ideas certain proponents didn't want corrupted in any sort of institution.
they were trying to prevent stupid shit like the crusades and the spanish inquisition and suicide bombings and jehovas witnesses.
its wasn;'t supposed to be about authority, its an individual thing.
No contemporary record of any kind exists which mentions Jesus. Period. There were two mentions of him from a couple of books contemporaneous with the period up to 33A.D but the mentions of Jesus have both been proven to have been later interpolations by the early Church fathers, i.e fakes.
And the webpage you provide a link to just confirms this, albeit with a load of wishy-washy suppositions and conjecture thrown into the mix.
Still, nice try.
So, still, nice try.
How about this? Point to ME one CREDENTIALED, CREDIBLE, UNBIASED, and SCHOLARLY HISTORIAN, who lends any credibility to the Jesus never really existed" argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus
'The works of Josephus provide crucial information about the First Jewish-Roman War and are also important literary source material for understanding the context of the Dead Sea Scrolls and post-Second-Temple Judaism. Josephan scholarship in the 19th and early 20th century became focused on Josephus' relationship to the sect of the Pharisees. He was consistently portrayed as a member of the sect, but nevertheless viewed as a villainous traitor to his own nation — a view which became known as the classical concept of Josephus. In the mid 20th century, this view was challenged by a new generation of scholars who formulated the modern concept of Josephus, still considering him a Pharisee but restoring his reputation in part as patriot and a historian of some standing. Scholarship post-1990 sought to move scholarly perceptions forward by demonstrating that Josephus was not a Pharisee but an orthodox Aristocrat-Priest who became part of the Temple Establishment as a matter of deference, and not willing association (cf. Steve Mason 1991).
Josephus includes information about individuals, groups, customs and geographical places. His writings provide a significant, extra-Biblical account of the post-Exilic period of the Maccabees, the Hasmonean dynasty, and the rise of Herod the Great. He makes references to the Sadducees, Jewish High Priests of the time, Pharisees and Essenes, the Herodian Temple, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and to such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and Agrippa II, John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and a disputed reference to Jesus. He is an important source for studies of immediate post-Temple Judaism (and, thus, the context of early Christianity).
A careful reading of Josephus' writings allowed Ehud Netzer, an archaeologist from Hebrew University, to discover the location of Herod's Tomb, after a search of 35 years — above aqueducts and pools, at a flattened, desert site, halfway up the hill to the Herodium, 12 kilometers south of Jerusalem — exactly where it should have been, according to Josephus's writings...'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_o ... _Flavianum
'..The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it was at a minimum embellishment by early Christian scribes, if not a forgery. The other passage simply mentions Jesus as the brother of James, also known as James the Just. Most scholars consider this passage genuine,[1] but its authenticity has been disputed by Emil Schürer as well by several recent popular writers.
Josephus' other major work, The Jewish War, makes no mention of Jesus.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
Doherty, Earl, "The Jesus Puzzle," Canadian Humanist Publications, 1999
Gauvin, Marshall J., "Did Jesus Christ Really Live?" (from: http://www.infidels.org/)
Gould, Stephen Jay "Dinosaur in a Haystack," (Chapter 2), Harmony Books, New York, 1995
Graham, Henry Grey, Rev., "Where we got the Bible," B. Heder Book Company, 1960
Graves, Kersey "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors," 1875
Helms, Randel McCraw , "Who Wrote the Gospels?", Millennium Press
Irenaeus of Lyon (140?-202? C.E.), Against the Heresies
Leedom, Tim C. "The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read," Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1993
Massey, Gerald, "Gerald Massey's Lectures: The Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ," 1900
McKinsey, C. Dennis "The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy," Prometheus Books, 1995
Metzger, Bruce,"The Text of the New Testament-- Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration," Oxford University Press, 1968
Pagels, Elaine, "The Gnostic Gospels," Vintage Books, New York, 1979
Pagels, Elaine, "Adam, Eve, and the Serpent," Vintage Books, New York, 1888
Pagels, Elaine, "The Origin of Satan," Random House, New York, 1995
Price, Robert M.," Deconstructing Jesus," Prometheus Books, 2000
Pritchard, John Paul, "A Literary Approach to the New Testament," Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1972
Remsberg, John E., "The Christ," Prometheus Books
Robertson, J.M. "Pagan Christs," Barnes & Noble Books, 1966
Romer, John, "Testament : The Bible and History," Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1988
Schonfield, Hugh Joseph, "A History of Biblical Literature," New American Library, 1962
Spong, Bishop Shelby, "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism," HarperSanFrancisco, 1991
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Osman
'Born in Cairo in 1934, Osman was a law student at Cairo University before becoming a journalist. He moved to London in 1964. He became interested in possible links between the Bible and recent archaeological discoveries in Egypt, looking for possible reasons for the historical tension between Egypt and Israel. His first theory was that Joseph was the father-in-law of Amenhotep III, Yuya. In 1987 this claim provided the basis for his first book, Stranger in the Valley of the Kings.
Osman identified the Semitic-born Egyptian official Joseph with the Egyptian official Yuya, and asserted the identification of Hebrew liberator Moses with the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten. Ahmed Osman has even claimed that Moses and Akhenaten were the same person, supporting his belief by interpreting aspects of biblical and Egyptian history. He alleges that Atenism can be considered monotheistic and related to Judaism, and includes other similarities, including a ban on idol worship and the similarity of the name Aten to the Hebrew Adon, or "Lord". This would mesh with Osman's other claim that Akhenaten's maternal grandfather Yuya was the same person as the Biblical Joseph.
Osman's positions are in conflict with some of Egyptology mainstream beliefs and parts of the conventional Egyptian chronology. Some Egyptologists have gone as far as rejecting them as unacademic conjecture.[1][2]Donald Redford wrote a scathing review of Stranger in the Valley of the Kings for BAR.[3] Osman states that the reason mainstream Egyptologists do not accept his theories and the theories of others is because, "Egyptologists have established their careers on their interpretations", and that to accept other theories could give them less authority.[1]'