The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The church and the code > Comments

The church and the code : Comments

By Mark Christensen, published 18/5/2006

'The Da Vinci Code': ultimately what are facts when stacked against the absoluteness of a divine mystery?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
Philo,

MY HOMEWORK:

In sum, I think what John is saying is the Son is within the Father and we (humanity) are within the Son.

OTHER COMMENT:

Love existed before the Bible, not because of it. Science has been used as an instrument of love and hate. Religion has contributed to modern Science, e.g., the Augment for Design, is a religious cum scientific precept. Design is the foundation for Mechanics.

I will try an example. When scientists were studying sun spots in the nineteenth century, the calibrations used for examining the data were too short. They could not see the twenty year periodic cycles. In the philosophy of disciplines, Lakatos maintains a protective core is defended against outside threats…

Philo and John-Tassie,

What I am saying is theism protects the Bible. But, this is the wrong construct. However, the Christian Churches need to protect the Bible (Their "must be protected" core). What I am suggesting is to study the Jesus one should (a) take a wider view and (b) make Jesus the focus of the study, not the Bible.

Philo, do understand the Gospels to be "primary" sources?

Cheers,

O.
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 28 May 2006 1:31:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver and Philo, re “Son of God”
Barbara Thiering’s book Jesus the Man explains the orders of the organisational structure of the Essene society and their dynastic names. The guiding leaders of their doctrine the “Way of the Light” was a high ranking triarchy, of Priest, King and Prophet. The clerical patriarchy consisted of a supreme FATHER, and two deputies designated his SON and his SPIRIT. From King David’s time, the priestly dynasties were
1 FATHER Zardok priest also designated dynastically as the Archangel Michael,
2 SON or Abiathar priest designated whatever his personal name as the Archangel Gabriel (the ambassador of the Zardok/Michael) ie the Angel of the Lord.
3 SPIRIT or Levi priest being the Archangel Sariel.
See 1-Enoch4:9 for names and the Essene War Scroll 9:15-17 which gives the order of ranking of all angels in the Gospel era.
In the Gospel era, Zardok/Michael was Zacharias and then John the Baptist. His first deputy Abiathar/Gabriel was Simeon the Essene, and his second deputy Levi/Sariel was Jonathon Annas.
Jesus as a descendent of David, was not in a priestly dynasty and referred to himself as the Son of Man Matthew 16:13 ie no angelic title. His crucifixion crime was to have acted as the head of the priestly dynasty as well, a Son of God. This he denied Matthew 26:63-64 and Like 22:60.
Posted by john-tassie, Sunday, 28 May 2006 3:55:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
john-tassie,
I would'nt put to much authority on Barbara Thiering's theories. When Jesus addressed the Father he wasn't addressing a leader of the Essene community.

The relationship of us being considered sons of God because our God is a loving father and our spirit is meant to be a reflection of God's pure character, attitudes and actions led to this concept. This is reflected in Jesus use of the term "Father". We note its use in the prayer, "Our father who art in heaven", Even though it is a prayer used by John the baptizer and the Essenes is not a prayer to the deceased pater in some place in a distant universe, but a recognition of the spiritual omnipresence and omniscence of purity and holiness. Truth and holiness must win so that peace and blessing may reign in God's knigdom.

The concept of heaven is a spiritual state of purity and joy even as hell is a spiritual state of deceit and torment. Those whose lives are bound in pride, hatred, evil, terror, and human destruction create a spiritual state of torment in which they remain eternally unless a dramatic repentance and conversion takes place.

Saul who became Paul was one of those who repented and instead of ministering torment he then ministered release, reconciliation, hope and blessing and he happily accepted the torment of others for the sake of telling and demonstrating the forgiving nature of God.

Building a personal relationship to the purity of God far outweighs the clinical study of history and dusty texts. It is who I am, or who I should be in this present history that is important. Overall Jesus had little in common with the Essene community. John the Baptizer was an Essene being raised by them and like his father had frequented their community. Jesus said of John that in the kingdom of God John though a holy man was the least, in the kingdom of God sinners were welcomed as saints upon their repentance. Compare Ifran's article on Easter. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4385
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 28 May 2006 4:47:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo and john-tassie,

1. The Gospel of John appears to have been written in Syria around 90? Seemingly displaced in time and place from Jesus. Is there a chain of scriptural evidence from John back to Jesus in Galilee? This would support John on Jesus’ divinity assertion.

On what documented basis does John make his claim?

Based on documents from Qumran and our knowledge the Essences, religious groups of the period kept records. Otherwise, we have Lore and the risk of Chinese, nay, Jewish Whispers from Jesus house-gr members.

2. Does the Q document actually exist. Our is it a reconstruction? What I have read is vague?

3. I have read some debate on whether Jesus was a Cynic. Vaage, Mack and Crossan seem to say so. A position denied by Griffin, based on Jesus’ Jewish behaviour.

Just the same, it would seem Greek philosophy outlasted the Greek City-States, such as Sopphoris, very near Nazareth. Philosophers, Popkin et al. (nothing to do with religion) state, cynics say the world as fundamentally evil (Roman occupation?) and they must withdraw from evil and individually/small group live virtuously. What was important individual conduct. Cleave cynicism from Hellenism and enjoin it to Judaism in Roman Galilee and perhaps there is some basis for understanding why Jesus seems to skilled in Judaic Law and often used “chreiai”:

Jesus the preacher:

-A- Can the rich can enter the Kingdom? Jesus said, “It is easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle” (Mark)

Diogenes the cynic:

-B- Why are you begging from a statue, Diogenes? “To get practise in being refused” ( Diogenes Laertus)

Note, in both cases, (a) the cynic style, (b) reference to poverty and (c) the use of humour. In which case, -A- has nothing to do with camels’ kneeling.

What is important here, is, documentation. Elsewise, John’s claim about divinity is not well supported. Similarly, the cynic speculation is an histographically supported proposition. I think the cynic augment the best unproven proposition. However, in the absence of validated contemporary scrolls and codex we have conjecture in both cases.
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 30 May 2006 12:04:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philo and john-tassie,

Your letter to john-tassie "Building a personal relationship to the purity of God far outweighs the clinical study of history and dusty texts."

But can't see how such a relationship would negate valid study of pre Nicean-gospel history. The Bible itself is an edited composite of "dusty texts" from history. If we don't keep revisiting "all" these texts and testing these against new formulations, we could become guilty of a priori validation and intellectual stagnation: Self-confirmation can result.

We don't learn about deep sea creatures buy diving in the shallows. We need to know based, on what basis the Bible is formulated, from reputable indepedent sources...

To Amercians Lincoln is portrayed, as a strong abolutionist. Reading dusty old history tells us most-of-all, Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union. Albeit, the Emancipation Proclomation did lift his anti-slavery profile. Dustier books might allude to the South's striving for the "right" of independence from the Union, just as the thirteen original colonies did from Britain. Perhaps, the South (slavery aside) stood closer to the French revisionists thinkers than did the Union. Get my drift?

Any body of knowledge needs its supporters and protagonists, as above. A gestalt? Amercian history, Aussie history and Biblical history needs to revised, revised and revised again.

The Bible is not Jesus, anymore than the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. Neither, is infallible, in my view. You can disagree. But we both should investigate, I suggest.

p.s.

"It is who I am, or who I should be in this present history that is important." Early cynics, methinks, would agree. Just the same, history stands independent to this belief.
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 30 May 2006 2:21:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver,
The occupation of my time on other things has depleted my time to research properly. I have read Professor FF Bruce and others on the NT documents and the sourse material and did well in the exams on the NT documents but that was 40 years ago.

Some observations: Jesus was exposed to Hebrew life, adhered to Jewish religious practise and ideas, infancy in Egypt, Greek language and Roman culture. He was familiar with live theatre as he uses many of its terms in description, eg hypocrite. His upbringing was with Galileean Jews, and briefly with John the Baptist from the Essene community.

There is a uniqueness of thought in his words that is why he stood out from every other Jewish sect. He was teaching love for our enemies while every Jewish sect, even his own deciples, were anticipating the violent overthrow of Roman occupation.

When you note his attitudes towards the unclean, the downtrodden, the Samaritans and social outcasts you can begin to see a dynamic that commands attention. He believed that change needed to occurr and it would happen where people felt their need for change. Religious heirarchy and power brokers have little consciousness that they need to change their ways.

I must update by some study to answer your questions.
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 30 May 2006 8:46:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy