BS: There are 2000 year old living people!

Subject: RE: BS: There are 2000 year old living people!
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 09:25 AM

It is truly amazing how 'uninformed' know-it-alls, can make complete asses out of themselves....and do so, so proudly!

Just awaiting the results of those who actually checked out the material, who have a point of view.......

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: There are 2000 year old living people!
From: Kent Davis
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 10:38 AM

Frogprince,

I've mentioned a couple of times that the phrase "coming of the kingdom" doesn't refer to what we often call "Judgment Day". I was trying to be brief and to the point but, as I re-read my posts, I fear I may have brief to the point of obscurity. If so, I apologize.

I mentioned that the phrase "coming of the kingdom" does not refer to the Day of Judgment. The event which occurs right after Judgment is, in the New Testament, called "inheriting" the kingdom. The New Testament refers to inheriting the kingdom in several passages (Matthew 25:34-36; I Corinthians 6:9,10 and 15:50; Galatians 5:19-21).

Once I thought that "inheriting the kingdom" and "entering the kingdom" and the "coming of the kingdom" were all the same thing, but I was wrong.   

The United Kingdom CAME into being in, I believe, 1707. If I am someday blessed to visit that kingdom, I will ENTER it but, given my genealogy, I will never INHERIT that kingdom.

Matthew 16:28 refers to the "coming of the kingdom" which was then still in the future. Colossians 1:13, written after Jesus had begun to reign as king over heaven and over his church, refers to Christians as having already been "transferred" to the then-existing kingdom. "Inheriting" the kindgom is yet future.

Matthew 16:28 used to bother me. It bothered me, not because Jesus made a mistake, but because Kent mis-read what Jesus said.

Kent

Matthew 25:34-36
Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, INHERIT THE KINGDOM prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'

Subject: RE: BS: There are 2000 year old living people!
From: Paul Burke
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 11:54 AM

Jesus had begun to reign as king over heaven

I bet God wishes he'd never let the Greeks loose on his religion. God is eternal (so they say), and has existed from before time; indeed he exists outside time. Jesus is God (so they say), and while God appears to have something of a multiple personality disorder, so do quite a few people, and we are more liberal with disabilities these days. But for God to have started doing something in Heaven on such-and-such a date (we don't know what it is, but Kent seems to think i's determinable within a few years) is a good one. Jesus, the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow (but not before November 13th 36AD)?

Oh bother, let's not get started on whence the Holy Spirit proceeds. And ignore thse legalistic materialists who want to pin their god down in a dusty old book, like a pressed flower. Let's hear it for the teacher Jesus, killed as a rebel by the authorities for subversion, who preached the Sermon on the Mount that his "followers" today so studiously ignore.

Subject: RE: BS: There are 2000 year old living people!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 01:41 PM

"Let's hear it for the teacher Jesus, killed as a rebel by the authorities for subversion, who preached the Sermon on the Mount that his "followers" today so studiously ignore."

Yes, indeed! Hurrah for the free thinker, Jesus, who taught a gospel of love, kindness, forgiveness, mercy, and nonviolence! Jesus was not a Christian. Christians are the people who came later, some time after Jesus was gone, and after his first group of surviving followers gave up trying to reform the traditional Jewish religion from within and decided to turn Jesus into an idol and start an entirely new religion in his name. They started a whole long train of events, many of which were not at all in the spirit of what Jesus taught. It's hardly fair to blame him for it. He wasn't there any longer to set his "followers" straight.

As for the Bible, it's a pastiche of writings by many different authors from many different historical time periods, and each book reflects the ideas of the writer and the time. The Old Testament is for the most part utterly unlike the New Testament in its approach to things. The message Jesus brought was very unlike the messages brought in most of the Old Testament, and this is probably one of the main reasons why he was persecuted and eventually killed by the religious authorities of his time.

It's fairly incredible that any human being would consider the Bible to be "without error" and literally true throughout....until you consider the effect that culture and upbringing has on people. People basically WILL tend to believe and accept whatever they've been taught to believe and accept by their parents, their schools, and their community. They do so because they see it as an intrinsic part of their own identity and they're used to it. Their acceptance is pretty much automatic from that point on. And they often feel threatened by others not automatically accepting what they accept.

Given that, it's not so surprising that some people take the Bible literally and think it is without error. They've simply been around other people who thought that way, and they take it for granted.

Once you take anything for granted, you entire logical mind and your powers of reason and observation and interpretation line up like soldiers to defend it. It makes sense to you because you've already decided that it should.

This is why, for example, I have 2 exceedingly intelligent young friends who are Jehovah's Witnesses....and they are NOT stupid people...nor are they poorly educated people...in fact, they are one of the brightest and most capable (and likable) couples I've ever known. They are exemplary people. One is a dental hygeinist, the other is a successful business advisor who helps companies improve their sales capabilities and other organizational skills.

There is no aspect of these two people that is not quite impressive (aside from their religious ideas, which might not impress you or me). I kid you not! But they believe literalist stuff about religion and the Bible that I could not possibly believe, because I came from a completely different upbringing than they did. Their beliefs surprise me a bit...but don't trouble me. It doesn't harm me in any way. It is no threat to anyone. It's just their own level of belief, that's all, and I can't see that it's doing them any harm either....they are handling their lives extremely well, and they are among the nicest and must trustworthy, honest, responsible people I've ever known.

So I make no judgement on them whatsoever over their religious beliefs, I simply accept the fact that they grew up with a completely different set of assumptions around them than I did. And that's why they believe different things than I do. Period.

We can argue the pros and cons forever, but there will always be people who believe stuff we don't believe. It doesn't mean they're stupid. It doesn't mean they're bad. It means they grew up under a different set of influences and were exposed to different things.

Subject: RE: BS: There are 2000 year old living people!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 01:57 PM

~~~Hurrah for the free thinker, Jesus, who taught a gospel of love, kindness, forgiveness, mercy, and nonviolence!~~~~
,.,.,.
Now, could that be that same Jesus who came to bring, not peace, but a sword?

Subject: RE: BS: There are 2000 year old living people!
From: John P
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 02:11 PM

There is no aspect of these two people that is not quite impressive . . . But they believe literalist stuff about religion and the Bible that I could not possibly believe, because I came from a completely different upbringing than they did. Their beliefs surprise me a bit...but don't trouble me.

This matches my experience of most people, including most Christians. Really nice people, running their lives in good ways. The reason I am still troubled by the literal Bible stuff is that here in the US they mostly vote for people who are trying to destroy our freedoms. Also, religious belief ends up getting treated as if it was as valid and as important to the rest of us as serious scholarship. I think that erodes the level and usefulness of a lot of public discussion.

LH, do have any idea how your friends feel about the separation of church and state? Or if their decisions about who to vote for are determined primarily by their religious beliefs?

Subject: RE: BS: There are 2000 year old living people!
From: Kent Davis
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 02:17 PM

Paul Burke,

I join you in applauding Jesus.

I hope that you, Frogprince, and others found intersting and helpful the information I provided about the phrases "coming of the kingdom" and "inherit the kingdom".

When I wrote, all that I hoped to do was to shed a little light on a couple of often-misunderstood phrases. I was not simultaneously trying to explain how the temporal relates to the Eternal.

I am sorry that my answer so disappointed you.

Kent

Subject: RE: BS: There are 2000 year old living people!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 02:24 PM

Good question, MthGM, and one that has already been asked by many other people. ;-) For the answer, go not to what a whole assortment of different people attributed to Jesus in their writings, but go to the general account of his own personal conduct that can be easily gleaned from studying the many different accounts of his life and comparing them for the commonalities in his actual behaviour.

He did not go about wearing a sword. He did not command an army. He did not encourage his followers to practice violence. He was never noted for attacking anyone with a sword or encouraging anyone else to. When arrested in Gethsemane, one of his apostles attacked one of the arresting soldiers with a sword, and Jesus immediately told him to stop doing that.

Therefore I suspect that the statement which ONE of the many writers attributed to Jesus, saying that he came "to bring not peace, but a sword" was probably either..

1. Made up by that writer to serve some agenda of his own...or

2. It has a symbolic significance not a literal one. The Archangel Michael, for example, in all ancient traditions is spoken of as carrying a sword...a sword which divides between truth and falsehood. Anyone who carries that symbolic sword and uses it by expressing truth and exposing falsehood will be extremely unsettling to people. He will cause them to be confronted with truths that they will probably find uncomfortable! And they will experience inner turmoil...it won't be a "peaceful" process for them while that is happening, because they'll be challenged to move out of their usual comfort zone.

You won't like my explanation, I trust. You'll argue against it. Fine. But your interpretation is just one person's interpretation, and I don't buy it. There's no material supporting it in Jesus' recorded behaviour when he was around other people. It's a little verbal straw you've grasped in the midst of an ocean of information to the contrary, and it carries no weight with me.

Remember: I've stated clearly that I do not think the Bible is without error. I think it has a good deal of error in it. Why should I be surprised that you can find the odd little straw in it to apparently back whatever argument you wish to entertain?

Subject: RE: BS: There are 2000 year old living people!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 02:36 PM

John P - It's a radically different situation in the USA regarding religion affecting politics. Religion has very little effect on the political agenda in Canada, and politicians here usually don't play on the religious angle much at all...if they do, the voters don't like it, and they lose votes. The present prime minister here is a Conservative, and he is reputed to be a born-again Christian, but if he is, he keeps it very close to his chest. He knows that if he were to make any kind of public point about it, the electorate would not go for it.

As regards my Jehovah's Witness friends, no, I don't think it affects the way they vote. Seems to me that they regard religion as a personal matter and politics as a public matter, so I think that the separation of church and state would seem normal to them. They would, naturally, like to see honesty and good morals in public officials....but who wouldn't?

They do think God's Kingdom will come at some point on this planet, after which the present political systems would presumably no longer be needed...but I don't see how that would affect the way they vote at present. ;-)

There is a tiny Christian fundamentalist political party in Canada: The Christian Heritage Party. And I do mean tiny! I'd guess that they get maybe 1/10 of 1 percent of the vote, if that. They aren't connected with the JV's. They've never elected anyone, and I can't imagine they ever will.

Subject: RE: BS: There are 2000 year old living people!
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 02:37 PM

···"He did not encourage his followers to practice violence. He was never noted for attacking anyone with a sword or encouraging anyone else to."···

Not a sword, no indeed. But a whip of small cords to drive out the money changers?...

"You won't like my explanation, I trust. You'll argue against it." ···

No: I think it a perfectly reasonable interpretation...

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: There are 2000 year old living people!
From: frogprince
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 02:38 PM

Why I let myself be goaded into it I'm not sure, but I just watched the entire presentation. It's a remarkable admixture of very interesting information and mumbo-jumbo.

It seems hard to deny, to say the least, the probability that the shroud wrapped a body, and that the image got unto the shroud from the body somehow. As to it being Jesus? I have no inclination to say that that's absurd. A lot of the details fit, and even the more conjectural "evidence" given was generally plausible. But a lot of this also consisted of "proving" a thesis by mixing it with so many superfilous facts, and dobs of pseudo-scientific jargon, that it all becomes "true".

Jargon as in saying that we don't actually see in 3 dimensions, as if either eye, with only 2 dimensional capability, could actually "see" without the image being processed by the brain.

Jargon as in saying that the shroud has only the "illusion" of shading, caused by the varying density of darkened area; in a monochromatic image, all shading consists of the varying density of darkened area.

If in fact the image was transferred from a body to the shroud, no one has anything but total conjecture as to how; it really is a fascinating, intriguing question. If in fact the cloth was affected by a burst of light, or other energy, then to say that only some of the light had time to affect the cloth before the body vanished into another dimension is, to say the least, as baseless a flight of conjecture as any of us will ever hear. And it doesn't suddenly become plausible because early gnostics talked about different kinds of reality.

And isn't it amazing that this "code" was deliberately provided, all those centuries ago, so that the image could be retrieved by modern means? What "code"? surprise: given a comparable 2 dimensional image, a three dimensional image can be retrieved with modern technology. Any expert could start with an old negative and end up with a realistic 3 dimensional presentation; if the initial image was on cloth draped in an irregular manner, it would take him that much more painstaking work to do it.

Now: what does that have to do with those three scriptural references? did Jesus become "Christ", a "generation" of pure light, in another dimension, at the resurrection? Or are you going to keep your gnostic knowledge to yourself, so you can remain the only member of the spiritually superior "band" around here?

Subject: RE: BS: There are 2000 year old living people!
From: John P
Date: 07 Oct 11 - 03:43 PM

LH, depending on the outcome of our next election, I might try to immigrate to Canada. A political system where the religion of the candidate isn't important would be very refreshing!

Subject: RE: BS: There are 2000 year old living people!
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Oct 11 - 10:58 AM

...does entering 'Time' give us amnesia???


...and make us hard of hearing???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: There are 2000 year old living people!
From: gnu
Date: 08 Oct 11 - 08:57 PM

Follow? I would follow her anywhere! Thanks GfS.

Subject: RE: BS: There are 2000 year old living people!
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Oct 11 - 09:46 PM

You're welcome...........BTW, which one?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: There are 2000 year old living people!
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Oct 11 - 10:10 AM

Been waiting for Lighter to gt back...
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: There are 2000 year old living people!
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 08:28 AM

I checked with a devout friend of mine about the generational inconsistency. He's studied the Bible for decades.

His first response was that I must have counted wrong, but his final position was that because the genealogies have no cosmic significance, it might well be an error.

He didn't think that sort of triviality cast doubt on anything else.

As for the part about not tasting death, he correctly observed that there were "various interpretations" along the lines I listed originally. The uncertainty and confusion didn't bother him, because it was a prophetic statement that could not be analyzed literally. It might have something to do with some kind if time relativity between the material and heavenly worlds. In Eternity, there is no time as we know it.

I might add that my friend is neither a fundamentalist nor a creationist.

Subject: RE: BS: There are 2000 year old living people!
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 12:26 PM

Lighter: "I checked with a devout friend of mine about the generational inconsistency......"

The other scriptures I gave you, shows NO inconsistency! Did you watch the linked documentary??

That puts a WHOLE LOT together, in regards to 'death and time', and please pay attention to the questions that needed answers, in the video, and the new area of science that it opened up.

As one guy says on it, "This is a coming together of science and spiritualism on a most profound way".

Well worth the time to watch.....not so much for just the 'face', but the science involved!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: There are 2000 year old living people!
From: Lighter
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 12:42 PM

Lisa Kelly and Mairead Nesbitt. Beautiful performances.

And Sting. Not so much.

Nothing biblical in either case, as far as I could tell.

Live long and prosper!

Subject: RE: BS: There are 2000 year old living people!
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Oct 11 - 01:33 PM

Does anyone except Gfs see the linked presentation as "opening up a whole new area of science?

What I didn't mention before is that what Gfs calls a secular, science-based presentation is so loaded with manipulative emotional appeal that just about anything in it is bound to become "true" for any fundamentalist with more fervor than discernment. Like a regretably large amount of the History Channel's fare, it is as much or more pandering as history or science.