This is a new thread that has come out of the Age of the earth in the Bible thread and is in response to Ace88’s remarks below.
I have been reading the inspiring book “The Gentle Art of Blessing” by Pierre Pradervand and this sentence stood out to me:
[COLOR="Sienna"]
“…truth resides first and foremost in demonstration, in the truth lived, in a state of consciousness, and not in dogmas, rituals, or sacred books.”
I think the Bible is meant to be taken literally, but that the Old Testament dealing with the Israelites was replaced by the New Covenant, after Christ's death.
Fist of all Ace, a little observation. I notice that many Christians speak (as you just have) about “after Jesus’ death”, as if that was the end of the story? I always think of (and speak of) “after his resurrection and ascension”. Just puzzled, that’s all. :confused:
The Bible doesn't have many contradictions. Just because there are verses we don't understand, doesn't make them contradictions. There have been some contradictions scientists claimed for years from the Bible that later - the Bible turned out to be right. One of them was I think about James and had to do with dates, but the scientists didn't realize there were two James, not one, but discovered this later through archaeology. Many of these so-called contradictions are taken out of context, without reading the entire passage, and many others can be explained.
Many of these so-called contradictions are taken out of context, without reading the entire passage.. .
I totally sympathise about taking things out of context! Christian apologetics always take Mary Baker Eddy’s words about Jesus’ time in the tomb out of context and make it look as if she believed he never died on the cross! Yet anyone actually studying the original source material would know that this is a deliberate falsehood, designed to discredit her and Christian Science.
Anyway, back to the Bible:
From The Interpreter’s Dictionary (Vol. 4, pp. 594-595):
“It has been estimated that these manuscripts ... differ among themselves between 150,000 and 250,000 times. The actual figure is, perhaps, much higher.”
“Many thousands of these different readings are variants in orthography or grammar or style and have no effect upon the meaning of the text. But there are many thousands which have a definite effect upon the meaning of the text.”
And here is an academic, fairly balanced critique from Evangelical Textual Criticism of a book written by someone who used to believe that the Bible was inerrant, which is worth reading Ace (and yes, I am aware that books have been published trying to refute Ehrman’s observations, but this critique concedes that he makes some important points):
[url] Review of Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus[/url]
This is an excerpt from the book:
"Not only do we not have the originals [of the books of the New Testament], we don't have the first copies of the originals. We don't even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later -- much later. In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later. And these copies all differ from one another, in many thousands of places. As we will see later in this book, these copies differ from one another in so many places that we don't even know how many differences there are. Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.
"Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant. A good portion of them simply show us that scribes in antiquity could spell no better than most people can today (and they didn't even have dictionaries, let alone spell check)."
From: Misquoting Jesus: the story behind who changed the Bible and why By Bart D. Ehrman pages 10-11
There’s a lecture by the author on this subject here:
[DLMURL] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=397006836098752165 [/DLMURL] (99 min)
This is the beginning of the talk (10 min)
(and there are some fascinating other videos on this page!)
Spelling errors matter hugely, especially from the Hebrew, where one vowel can make all the difference to the meaning. I like the Amplified Bible for this reason as it tries to give all the possible meanings.
More serious are parts that it is believed may have been altered in order to back up various doctrines. For instance, take the text from 1 John 5:
KJV - 6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
* [Words in brackets and italics] = The 16th Century additions to (corruptions of) what was in the original text of the New Testament.
* Words in bold font = The correct original wording of 1Jo 5:7,8……….For additional details regarding the corruption of the Textus Receptus that was the basis of the Greek text used by the KJV translators, browse . Below is an excerpt from that article.
Conservative biblical scholar F.F. Bruce (History of the English Bible, Third Edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 1978, pages 141-142) explains the sad history of how 1Jo 5:7-8 had been errantly added to Erasmus' Greek text:
The words ["in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth."] omitted in the R.V. [Revised Version, 1881] were no part of the original Greek text, nor yet of the Latin Vulgate in its earliest form. They first appear in the writings of a Spanish Christian leader named Priscillian, who was executed for heresy in A.D. 385. Later they made their way into copies of the Latin text of the Bible. When Erasmus prepared his printed edition of the Greek New Testament, he rightly left those words out, but was attacked for this by people who felt that the passage was a valuable proof-text for the doctrine of the Trinity.
At the end of the day though, we can get so fixated on words (on the letter) that we miss the whole glory, the wonder, the power, the inspiration, the meaning and purpose of the Bible (the spirit). A vicar said to me that the Bible is about 70% about man and history and about 30% about God. It's the truth BEHIND the words that is divine. It's not every single (sometimes contradictory) word that the Bible says, but what it DOES - the inspired Word (not every literal one!) lifts us up to a higher place where we find God healing and salvation. Paul said in II Cor 3:
[COLOR="Purple"]..the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
and that was what Mary Baker Eddy was trying to explain too::
[COLOR="Blue"]
But mistakes could neither wholly obscure the divine Science of the Scriptures seen from Genesis to Revelation, mar the demonstration of Jesus, nor annul the healing by the prophets, who foresaw that "the stone which the builders rejected" would become "the head of the corner. " (Science and Health 139)
The Scriptures are very sacred. Our aim must be to have them understood spiritually, for only by this understanding can truth be gained. (Science and Health 547)
Love and peace,
Judy
All are born into sin
Everyone who is born of woman is born of sin. If that was not the case, death would be unknown.
In fact it's even evil to bring forth children and give them 70 or 90 years of suffering in this world of nothing.
Being born of a woman is the First death. But as stated in revelation 20:6 if one understands the first resurrection which is the Science of Mind, the second death has no power.
As for the use of Children in metaphorical writing, one needs to learn the symbolism of Holy writ, the Bible has hardly any literal meaning, if any at all?
If one reads about Elisha in 2 Kings-2:23-24.
"And he went up from thence unto Beth-el and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
And he turned back and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."
Beth-el = House of God = God consciousness.
Little children = Mortal Thoughts = the negation of true consciousness.
Mocked = Attempts to make doubting
Bald head = feelings of doubt, nakedness.
She bears = Spritual power, Female strenght of God. omnipotance.
Tare = to undo. take away.
Forty two = Forty as much as is needed. Forty two= even more as needed.
Regards Meta
I would agree with Barafundles idea of the seven chakras. To take it further, the idea that those who will go to heaven (according to the Book of Rev) have 144,000 written on the forehead also relates to the chakras. The numbers of the petals of the chakras 1 to 6 add up to 144 then multiply this by the crown chakra's 1000 petalled lotus = 144,000! Not that silly idea of some cults that this is the number of those that will go to heaven when armageadeon (spelling???) comes. A good example where mumbo jumbo gets mixed up with the esoteric sciences.
As for the concept of the "Original Sin", that is enough to screw up young minds for the rest of their life. Interestingly when Christianity came to China (7th century I think off the top of my head????) and the Bible was translated into Chinese, original sin became "Original Nature". I find this far more insightful way of understanding ourselves and developing a better and more wholesome lifestyle.
RP
Just watched BH's Dave Allen link :-)))
Here's my contribution:
Please note that this above link may offend people of a nervous disposition!
RP
Thanks RP! That's a DVD that gets played a lot in our home! :p
Judy
20 Here is what the mystery of the seven stars you saw in my right hand means. They are the angels of the seven churches. And the seven golden lampstands you saw stand for the seven churches.
John's instructions are actually addressed to the seven angels (I prefer the King James version):
Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars...
The angels can be said to represent a state of consciousness associated with developing one of the seven chakras (or churches), i.e. sensuality, compassion, creativity, etc. The message to 'the angel of the church of Ephesus' is about the action of conscience.
The Book of Revelation is a metaphorical and metaphysical handbook of yoga (yoga in it's sense of meaning union with the Divine).
Everyone who is born of woman is born of sin. If that was not the case, death would be unknown.
In fact it's even evil to bring forth children and give them 70 or 90 years of suffering in this world of nothing.Being born of a woman is the First death. But as stated in revelation 20:6 if one understands the first resurrection which is the Science of Mind, the second death has no power.
Are you a follower of Ernest Homes and his Religious Science then meta? What you write sounds very strange to me and there doesn't seem to be a lot of love behind it.
Judy
I tend to agree with you there Judy.
Such statements as made above by meta simply smack of judgement by humans of the whole of the human race.
Judgement is not truth. Judgement is not love. And therefore that statement is not truth.
I'll say no more. 😉
All Love and Reiki Hugs
I agree with Judy and Energylazy 😉
Meta's statement is awful.
RP
Are you a follower of Ernest Homes and his Religious Science then meta? What you write sounds very strange to me and there doesn't seem to be a lot of love behind it.
Judy
Never heard of Ernest Homes.
BH, I don't think you could have read my post above!! 😀
Judy
Hi Judy.
I'm sorry I took so long to reply, and yes I did read your post. I just responded to the salient bits.
However:
Here we are yet again with the age old problem of 'Interpretation'.
The reason we now have thirty thousand different flavours of Christianity is because the bible is such an incoherent garbled mess. Anyone can make anything of it. There's no idiocy in the bible that someone won't put a positive spin on. How can this be?
God is reportedly one wicked powerful dude who made the entire universe in six days, but when it comes to his biography he selects four no name# no account sidewalk commandos (Nobodies).
One would expect the gasping rattling last breath of the creator of the universe to have some sort of profound meaning for us all. Well perhaps his words do, but what last words do we choose?
"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Matthew 27: 45-46
"Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." Luke 23: 46
"It is finished." John 19:30
"Father forgive them, they know not what they do" Luke 23:34
So here we are two thousand years after the event and what are we supposed to make of it? It makes no more sense now than it did then. The bible is rubbish. It's a collection of myths and fables gossiped together by a bunch of bronze age goat herding pipe smoking mystics. It's Louis Carrol nonsense verse. Religion Is jabberwocky. We didn't need it in the 1st century and we can surely do without it in the 21st.
As for Mary Baker Eddy? Well as far as I can see she was a perfectly decent woman, unfortunately, she was also perfectly ordinary. Her only claim to fame is inventing one of the thirty thousand christian sects we have. She also had a penchant for talking absolute sh___. Well OK, we can go into details later, but I think you get me drift.
Christian Science? An oxymoron if ever I saw one.
I'm off now Judy, my eye lids are like tombstones so good night and best regards hon.
Now as for bwian and those other wuffians: "NI" I say to you.
# The writers of the four gospels are anonymous.
There's no idiocy in the bible that someone won't put a positive spin on.
One would expect the gasping rattling last breath of the creator of the universe to have some sort of profound meaning for us all.
The bible is rubbish. It's a collection of myths and fables gossiped together by a bunch of bronze age goat herding pipe smoking mystics.
As for Mary Baker Eddy? Well as far as I can see she was a perfectly decent woman, unfortunately, she was also perfectly ordinary. Her only claim to fame is inventing one of the thirty thousand christian sects we have. She also had a penchant for talking absolute sh___.
Were you aware, Boson, that it is possible to disagree with someone's religious views without resorting to insults? I do wonder why you feel the need to be so impolite and antagonistic? Your tone just comes across as aggressive and takes away from any point you're trying to make.
Sorry BH, but whilst your post is clearly your own opinion, it lacks any sense of reasoned discussion and shows a lack of true knowledge IMHO.
Here we are yet again with the age old problem of 'Interpretation'.
The reason we now have thirty thousand different flavours of Christianity is because the bible is such an incoherent garbled mess. Anyone can make anything of it. There's no idiocy in the bible that someone won't put a positive spin on. How can this be?
I agree with you that the bible has been interpreted in many many ways and this is what causes so many sects of Christianity, and even the conflicts between them.
God is reportedly one wicked powerful dude who made the entire universe in six days, but when it comes to his biography he selects four no name# no account sidewalk commandos (Nobodies).
Only if the words are taken literally and anybody would be unwise to take it so literally. A "day" in scientific terms is the 24 hours of earth rotation, but a "day" in the biblical sense is not necessarily referring to the same thing. If taken metaphorically, it can be seen simply as the stages of creation (not that I myself believe in creationism, but that's my understanding of the biblical teachings).
Religion Is jabberwocky. We didn't need it in the 1st century and we can surely do without it in the 21st.
Religion is what you make it. If you take it as Jabberwocky, then that's how it will be to you. If the wise teachings are understood properly then they can be applied just as easily today as they have been in the past.
Christian Science? An oxymoron if ever I saw one.
Not so. If the wisom of Christianity (and the other religions) is understood and the theories of science are understood, then there are clear overlaps between them. It is often the case that they are referring to the same thing, just using different terminology. If you believe Christian Science is an oxymoron, then I can only assume your understanding of Christianity and Science is not complete enough to see the truth.
All Love and Reiki Hugs
Dear Energlyz.
I like to congratulate you about your clear and calm reply, about Boson Higgs remarks.
But I do understand also that Boson Higgs got frustrated the way parts the Bible is used to organize sects and cults and what not, and hold it before the masses as truth. I myself think that the Bible holds within its pages the Science of Life, and that I don't understand it all discourage me often, but I always return to it, as I have nowhere else to go. To me it has no literal meaning at all. but to many it does. What I like most of all like about your replies, they are from yourself, and come over to me, that you have a beautifull composed mind, and I think that's shows a mature life. It annoys me when people post a thought about something, and then use numerous quotations from other writers to confirm their beliefs. But then again I quote " Man that is born of a woman is short of days, and full of trouble. book of Job 14:1 Regards Meta
Hi Meta, and thank you for your compliments. 🙂
But I do understand also that Boson Higgs got frustrated the way parts the Bible is used to organize sects and cults and what not, and hold it before the masses as truth.
Unfortunately, this is the way of society in general, not just religions. Turn on the television and the news reports to you the "truth"... or so they say. If that were the case then we'd all be dying of swine flu by now, or all have lost our money by the bankers who have stolen it.
Truth only comes from knowledge, not from information. Whilst information can be useful, it is only when it is personally tested that it can be found to be truthful (or not) and that is when it becomes knowledge.
So, people can hold the bible up to me, quote passages from it and say it is the truth. Maybe to them, maybe in their own understanding, but not to me; not until I understand the purpose behind the words, put it into practice myself and find it to be truth. There is a lot of truth in the bible or many other religious or ancient texts, but most of that truth, from my experience, is when the real wisdom of what is being taught is read in the words, rather than the literal words as they are written.
The same message can be found in the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, the Bible, the K'oran, Buddhist teachings or even the writings of Shakespear, Plato and other wise persons from history or present day. Each use different words, but each talks of the same principles for living in the present moment and with truth.
It annoys me when people post a thought about something, and then use numerous quotations from other writers to confirm their beliefs.
Again, this is part of society. People back up what they are saying by referring to the teachings/writings of someone else. Often the words have already been thought out and illustrated well by someone else, so to try and re-word that principle to explain it yourself and to keep it true to the truth, is a very difficult task. In the case of, for example, Judy who started this thread, the quotation of the writings of Mary Baker Eddy are what describe the truth to Judy in a terminology that is the cleanest to her. Others may see those writings as fundamentalist religious writings, but that would be their own judgement and misunderstanding, often through comparison against their own way of explaining the truth, and often without realisation that the two truths are speaking the same thing.
When you say it annoys you, this annoyance is not coming from the words of the person posting, but from within yourself. In buddhist philosophy it is said that, as an example, if your car breaks down and you feel anger, it is not the car that has manifested anger, but you yourself. The car did not give the anger and it cannot take it away, only you can do that.
However, by recognising this arising of emotions within ourselves, we can use this recognition as a trigger to ourselves to look within and see where this judgement has come from, what it is we are associating with and what we need to let go of, as the one thing that always stands true, is that the judgement is associated with something from the past; something that we are holding onto that serves us no positive feedback within ourselves. It is this past association that prevents us from living in the present moment, seeing what is true "here and now" and acting on this truth rather than re-acting on our judgement from the past.
All Love and Reiki Hugs
Dear Energylz
Thanx for pointing this out to me my about annoyance. I always like it when someone point defects of thought out to me, and give me something to work with.
It must be true, that anyone who argue with self, stop arguing with others. bless your heart. Regards Meta
Were you aware, Boson, that it is possible to disagree with someone's religious views without resorting to insults? I do wonder why you feel the need to be so impolite and antagonistic? Your tone just comes across as aggressive and takes away from any point you're trying to make.
Barafundle I mostly agree with you.
My reply to Judy was indeed more 'Robust' than the discussion required and for that, I apologise to Judy.
Whilst my approach may have been decidedly unmannerly, I think my response fell short of being insulting. As for aggression? You may have a point, but only in the sense that its difficult to express tone using text only. I'll have to work on that. Perhaps my abrupt attitude is partly due to spending to much time crossing swords with "Truthers" and the moon hoax mob. I give those people no quarter!
Overall I agree with you. That post of mine was very poorly constructed, terse and impolite.
I need some manners 🙁
Perhaps my abrupt attitude is partly due to spending to much time crossing swords with "Truthers" and the moon hoax mob. I give those people no quarter!
On HP such beliefs and claims don't often go unchallenged, and I find some of the most interesting discussions can result from those challenges. I know I've done my fair share of asking awkward questions.
Overall I agree with you. That post of mine was very poorly constructed, terse and impolite.
I need some manners 🙁
It's good of you to aknowledge that, Boson. One other reason I like HP is that unlike other forums (fora?) it can often bring out the best in people. 🙂
P.S. Judy's lovely. 🙂
Awe Giles do you see what you did with this?
A "day" in scientific terms is the 24 hours of earth rotation, but a "day" in the biblical sense is not necessarily referring to the same thing.
I'm quite sure it was unintentional but you've just quoted the bible to confirm biblical truth. One cannot refer to the bible for any sort of truth their-within. Its circular reasoning. Nowhere other than holy books is a “Day” described as being other that the time it takes for a planet (any planet) to execute a full rotation about its axis.
If the wise teachings are understood properly then they can be applied just as easily today as they have been in the past.
But what teachings? Show me an example of biblical teaching that didn't pre date the bible. When I say biblical teachings I mean something totally original. This: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
These are beautiful sentiments, but hardly original. It is one of the most basic precepts needed to get us from the African savannah to where we are today. We are basically good to one another and we have been for millions of years. It couldn't work any other way else we wouldn't be here.
Not so. If the wisdom of Christianity (and the other religions) is understood and the theories of science are understood, then there are clear overlaps between them. It is often the case that they are referring to the same thing, just using different terminology.
That sounds like NOMA! I hated the concept when I first came by it and I hate it now. Science and religion are mutually exclusive. Not ever ever will the two meet.
If you believe Christian Science is an oxymoron, then I can only assume your understanding of Christianity and Science is not complete enough to see the truth.
Sorry Giles, I can only assume you don't understand my position regarding the two.
Best regards.
P.S. Judy's lovely. 🙂
Awww shucks, thank you B! :1kis:
Bosun,
I appreciate your apology, though it wasn't me you were trying to insult, but the dearly held beliefs and convictions (based on actual proof) of many people (including myself). I was not offended, as I had a feeling that something liquid might have had something to do with your choice of words. :rolleyes: And besides, considering the other brickbats that have been lobbed my way during the past few days, at least yours resulted from a lack of knowledge of the subject and not malice, so no offense taken and forgiveness given. 😎
I realise that it's pointless to reason with you, so I won't even try. I hope however, that you see the gentle humour that I send back in these two quotes I came across:
I am not young enough to know everything. Oscar Wilde
Education: That which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding. Ambrose Bierce
As Barafundle says above, HP usually brings out the best in people. Most people here are kind, considerate, compassionate and respectful, which is probably why I've been here for 8 years! We are not intellectuals here, just decent people trying our best to help others.
Love and peace,
Judy
Science and religion are mutually exclusive. Not ever ever will the two meet.
They've met...
Causality may be considered as a mode of perception by which we reduce our sense impressions to order.
Niels Bohr
Time, space, and causation are like the glass through which the Absolute is seen.... In the Absolute there is neither time, space, nor causation.
Vivekananda
Science and religion have never met, Because they never been seperated, except in belief.
Meta
Awe Giles do you see what you did with this?
I'm quite sure it was unintentional but you've just quoted the bible to confirm biblical truth. One cannot refer to the bible for any sort of truth their-within. Its circular reasoning. Nowhere other than holy books is a “Day” described as being other that the time it takes for a planet (any planet) to execute a full rotation about its axis.
please excuse my typing from this hospital internet, i can't type as much as i would like. i wasn't quoting the bible, i was simply stating my unerstanding from how the bible, other "holy" texts (as you like to call them) and from ancient wisdom/philosophy texts. it is the modern texts that have interpreted the ancientones to call it a "day" and imho, that is an incorrect interpretation.
But what teachings? Show me an example of biblical teaching that didn't pre date the bible. When I say biblical teachings I mean something totally original. This: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
These are beautiful sentiments, but hardly original.
i could if i was at home, but unfortunately the hosptal doesnt have a library cntaining the ancient philosophy. 🙁
It is one of the most basic precepts needed to get us from the African savannah to where we are today. We are basically good to one another and we have been for millions of years. It couldn't work any other way else we wouldn't be here.
if you think people are basically good to each other and always have been, you musthave missed a lot of history lessons. 😉
That sounds like NOMA! I hated the concept when I first came by it and I hate it now. Science and religion are mutually exclusive. Not ever ever will the two meet.
Many of the great scientists believe in god, such as einstein and hawkins. many of the quantum theories are finding connections between science and the ancient philosophies, and starting to put scienific terminology to what were just words of wisdom... zero and the void; infinity and dark matter; the zero point energy field to name some of the basics.
Sorry Giles, I can only assume you don't understand my position regarding the two.
oh, i do. i'm an atheist, and i research and have a good personal background in the sciences. i then opened my mind and looked at religion and ancient philosophies and have started to put things to the test to discover the truth for myself. i certainly do not accept everything in religions and certainly not as they are written.
Science and religion have never met, Because they never been seperated, except in belief.
Meta
this certainly appears to be the case meta, although science has yet to confirm it in it's own terms as the unified theory of eveything. All Love and Reiki Hugs (in case you can't tell my enter key doesn't work on the forum :D)
Hi Ace.
Those two statements don't really tally do they?
As for your belief that the bible is infallable, do I take it that you believe the tales of talking snakes, talking donkeys, pregnant virgins and a global flood are true?
Look at the gospels for instance. They are supposedly the inspired word of god.
So how come we have four versions of the Crucifixion.
Four versions of the resurrection.
Four versions of the ascension.
They can't all be true can they. So which one is true and why? Or perhaps none of them are?
The four versions of the Crucifixion all tell the same story, it's just that the authors choose to emphasize or demphasize different points. Just because one author says one thing that another one doesn't include, doesn't make the one author wrong. Are you saying everyone of these versions is different? On the contrary, I find it remarkable that 4 people from different walks of life, people who are believe to be historically true people, could all write the same story and come to the same conclusions...
Yes, I certainly believe in a worldwide flood. In fact, almost every single ancient civilization had stories or legends of a worldwide flood - why would that be? If there really was worldwide flood, it would allow the earth to be much, much younger than it is thought to be by many scientists. When Mt. St. Helens erupted, it changed the landscape dramatically in such a short time, much shorter than scientists thought possible...
Yes, I believe the serpent talked in the garden and I believe Mary was a virgin impregnated by God.
OMG! I actually find myself agreeing with ace! Way to go!
xxx
John's instructions are actually addressed to the seven angels (I prefer the King James version):
Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars...
The angels can be said to represent a state of consciousness associated with developing one of the seven chakras (or churches), i.e. sensuality, compassion, creativity, etc. The message to 'the angel of the church of Ephesus' is about the action of conscience.
The Book of Revelation is a metaphorical and metaphysical handbook of yoga (yoga in it's sense of meaning union with the Divine).
I am fully in agreement with you on the choice of bible you read, the King James, that is the version I use, after going through some others to finally get to it.
Yes it is brilliant the Gospel accounts, and how each disciple has his own experience through it, but all in agreement of the actual happenings, healings and miracles, that took place.
I cannot agree though on the book of the Revelation having a connection with Yoga, please it is the Apostle John's account of a revelation given unto him from God, it concerns the church, the body of Christ, and lots more besides, of how it will be after the 'rapture' in the Millenium and when Christ reigns, satan is bound and let loose, and again much much more, I do not believe it has it orgins in Yoga at all and is not what I have heard expounded in church.
Otherwise, keep on reading as it has cleansing properties.
The four versions of the Crucifixion all tell the same story, it's just that the authors choose to emphasize or demphasize different points. Just because one author says one thing that another one doesn't include, doesn't make the one author wrong. Are you saying everyone of these versions is different? On the contrary, I find it remarkable that 4 people from different walks of life, people who are believe to be historically true people, could all write the same story and come to the same conclusions...
Yes, I certainly believe in a worldwide flood. In fact, almost every single ancient civilization had stories or legends of a worldwide flood - why would that be? If there really was worldwide flood, it would allow the earth to be much, much younger than it is thought to be by many scientists. When Mt. St. Helens erupted, it changed the landscape dramatically in such a short time, much shorter than scientists thought possible...
Yes, I believe the serpent talked in the garden and I believe Mary was a virgin impregnated by God.
Amen, and the Gospel:- 'Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners'
1 Timothy 1 v 15
Hang on, Maure. Earlier today I defended you against Myarka's warning not to preach: I really think you should know that there are loads of people here on HP who hold differing and at times contradictory religious and spiritual views. Sometimes we compare notes but rarely do we try to convince anyone that we (any one person) has a copyright on the 'Truth'. Generally we respect each other's beliefs. Many of us are pagans, many of us recognise and worship the Divine Feminine. To many of us God is not per se 'The Father'. Thus, may I ask that you consider all these factors when you are discussing (that's what we generally do: discuss topics and themes) your brand of faith. I think it's great that you were vouchsafed a revelation which led you to your present level of total belief. I too had an epiphany, a spiritual awakening, some fourteen years ago and I too now count myself blessed to have God in my life 24 hours a day. The difference is that when I pray to my god, or worship Her, I envision her as the Hindu goddess Kali. That's my privilege. So to your amens and halleluias, I would add Om Parasakthiamma. We are all one, Maure....
xxx
I cannot agree though on the book of the Revelation having a connection with Yoga...I do not believe it has it orgins in Yoga at all and is not what I have heard expounded in church.
The word Yoga loosely translated means 'union with the Divine', Maure, so for that reason I would respectfully disagree. The fact that this is not expounded in church is why I don't go to church.
Otherwise, keep on reading as it has cleansing properties.
Thanks Maure, I don't doubt I could benefit from a good cleanse. 🙂
I'm entering in here late to the topic. Anyway...
The Bible is sometimes allegory, it is also sometimes just politicking. But especially when you get to the NT, there is a lot there which has been proven historically to be valid and true. On an HP thread years ago I actually referenced a letter quite largely considered to have been written by Jesus himself (he dictated it as someone wrote it out). Just in recent years, it's also considered that the very home, of the fisherman Peter the disciple, has been located.
Sunanda wrote:
>>OMG! I actually find myself agreeing with ace! Way to go!
It's because there's an element of truth on all of this.
Ace wrote:
The four versions of the Crucifixion all tell the same story, it's just that the authors choose to emphasize or demphasize different points. Just because one author says one thing that another one doesn't include, doesn't make the one author wrong. Are you saying everyone of these versions is different? On the contrary, I find it remarkable that 4 people from different walks of life, people who are believe to be historically true people, could all write the same story and come to the same conclusions...
Yes, I certainly believe in a worldwide flood. In fact, almost every single ancient civilization had stories or legends of a worldwide flood - why would that be? If there really was worldwide flood, it would allow the earth to be much, much younger than it is thought to be by many scientists. When Mt. St. Helens erupted, it changed the landscape dramatically in such a short time, much shorter than scientists thought possible...
Yes, I believe the serpent talked in the garden and I believe Mary was a virgin impregnated by God.
We humans are contrary people, yes? But that's good. We never seem to agree on all points. I take that as meaning that the human race is still searching (and has not found, as a body) whole and ultimate truth. So I agree also with ace on some things, not on others.
Four versions of the life of Christ (there are actually many more than four) are simply the 'takes' of different individuals. That's natural.
A "serpent" "talked in the garden"? ROFL. No, Ace. Even the Jews to whom this scripture relates, (it came from them), knew until just a few short centuries ago that this was allegory, not physical fact. The followers of Moses, Jews, until recent times, always knew that this was a "story" as in allegory, to be read deeper into, and 100% not factual.
As for the Flood. It's a no-brainer. It happened around the time Scripture from dozens of faiths says that it did. Something very major did happen. There's almost no faith on Earth that doesn't record the fact. There's evidence of the physical kind all over the world. Just one example of scores: the fact that in North-East Asia/Siberia literally yards-deep into the earth are fairly recent (but a number of thousands of years ago) yards of rotting corpses of Mastodons and other creatures have all been found over hundreds of miles - that something major happened on Earth circa 10.500 BC.
The Gulf Stream also appeared then - so what Continent existed before 10,500 BC so that the Gulf Stream didn't exist before but then suddenly appeared, so that Europe till the changes was in an Ice Age? But afterwards, when Atlantis sank, the Gulf Stream could suddenly take place, nothing in its way anymore?
V :p
A "serpent" "talked in the garden"? ROFL. No, Ace. Even the Jews to whom this scripture relates, (it came from them), knew until just a few short centuries ago that this was allegory, not physical fact. The followers of Moses, Jews, until recent times, always knew that this was a "story" as in allegory, to be read deeper into, and 100% not factual.
Actually I have a little anecdote which appertains to the above: a friend of mine in India, a German woman not given at all to flights of fancy or metaphysical stuff. A businesswoman with no spiritual/shamanic interests told me that last year her dogs attacked a snake in the yard in front of her house. She called the dogs off and locked them away and then saw that the snake was wounded and immobile but still alive. At that point she says she absolutely certainly 'heard' the snake 'say': 'Can I rest here in safety?' My friend replied (not sure whether aloud or not): 'Yes, you can' and went off and got on with whatever she had been doing. When she looked again the snake had gone.
Sorry to go off topic and it definitely doesn't mean that I believe every word in the Bible - but I am very fond of snakes.