keeperoftheprison
Member
Why do you not accept John or Revelations? Are there any other books in the Bible that you do not accept? How do you choose what to accept?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Genesis 1:26
- Thread starter keeperoftheprison
- Start date
gnostic
The Lost One
The reference of "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-6, are not humans, keeper. Most people distinguish these passages of "sons of God" to be angels, not humans. The sons of God, known as the Watchers, or Griogriin Greek (should confused these Watchers in Buffy the Vampire Slayer) by the middle Second Temple Period (300-1 BCE), angels who had fallen, especially in the Book of Enoch, Book of Jubilee, Dead Sea Scrolls, and later in the Haggada.keeperoftheprison said:
keeperoftheprison said:
Well, in the source I supplied, Genesis 6:1-6, was written in sort of historical way, which is usually taken literally. However, you say:
keeperoftheprison said:
Are you indicating the angels (sons of God) are not begotten by God, literally?
If you do, then I find this to be very strange. Strange, because you would take something that are written literally (Genesis 6:1-6) to be taken metaphorically (like the "sons of God"). But with both Revelation and John 1 (with regards to the "Word"), which I would view as allegory or parable, but for you (and other Christians like you), would take it all literally what was written only in metaphorical manner.
It's probably why I don't understand Christians. You pick and choose which parts of the bible to take literally, and others part you would see as metaphors, parables or allegory.
Um, because I'm not a Christian?
All of the so-called 'NT' is suspect, especially anything written by (or credited to) Paul or John
I must admit I like the book of Matthew, except for the more obvious propaganda near the end
If it conflicts with Judaism, it's not acceptable
For example, the notion that G-d had 'partner gods' in creation is unacceptable
Last edited:
keeperoftheprison
Member
The key word is begotten in my opinion. The Bible is to be read literally,(with a common sense approach) but that isn't to mean there aren't things that have more meaning like "sons of man". There are books of the bible like Revelations that are not meant to be read literally because John would have been killed if he had written the book where Romans could understand what it meant.
keeperoftheprison
Member
So you follow the Old Testament Law? Does this mean you roll your sins over year to year? I'm not trying to be contrary, just trying to understand. I've never had the opportunity to talk directly with anyone of your faith.
gnostic
The Lost One
If you understand Roman history, then you will understand that they are just likely to accept foreign religions and deities as well as reject them.keeperoftheprison said:
If the Romans knew that John was proclaiming that Jesus was "a son of God", I don't think they would have a problem, because emperors have made such claims themselves, as did Julius Caesar. If John was proclaiming Jesus to be "god", the Romans wouldn't still much of this, because the emperors considered to be gods, or deified mortals. John wouldn't be killed by either claims.
There are more plausible and logical reason why the Romans had persecuted Christians, other than the deity of Jesus or son of a god. The Romans didn't really understand Christianity in this period, and thought Christianity was simply an offshoot of Judaism. Because Jews in Judaea have rebelled against Roman authority and occupation, Jerusalem was captured and the temple destroyed in 70 CE. I think that the Romans confused the Christians with the rebellious Jews, and tensions have been growing back in Herod the Great's time, if not before.
Herod the Great may have been friend of Rome and one of those client king of Rome, but the Jews or Judaeans didn't like Herod, because he wasn't quite "Jewish". And when Herod died, Roman took Judaea, which became another province to the empire.
keeperoftheprison
Member
I do understand Roman history and I have to disagree with you totally. I'm going to assume that you know a bit on the subject as well. The Jewish priests were tied very close and had alot of power in the Roman world. Jesus wouldn't have been beaten and killed if it were left up to the Roman government. Emperors would only change the religion of himself or the "state religion" when he felt it benefited him politically in alot of cases (Constanople). As you stated, Christians or Jews were not behaving like the romans wanted them to behave at the time. They were constantly rioting and having to send massive armies to keep the control or lose the territory. All Christians of the time were terrified of Romans and John was already exiled when Revelations was written. If he had plainly spoken of the Roman empire instead of using phrases and metaphors that only Jews and Christians would understand it was very likely that they would have had him meet a death just like Jesus and all eleven of the other apostles. We will never know for sure, but he is the only one that wasn't killed because of his beliefs.
gnostic
The Lost One
keeperoftheprison said:
The emperor Tiberius, who was contemporary to Jesus' ministry/death/resurrection, was completely unaware of Jesus. The events of ministry and resurrection, outside of the gospels, are completely silent.
It is not Jesus that stirred the Romans, it was Jesus' so-called disciples, like Paul. The Romans didn't actually began persecuting until Nero's reign. But at that time, Judaea have been more rebellious, probably beginning around the time of Caligula, when he wanted to have a golden statue of him erected in the Temple.
Because Christians originated in Judaea, Romans thought that Christians and Jews were the same.
The governor of Bithynia/Pontus, Pliny the Younger, frequently wrote correspondences (letters) to other Roman administrative officials, including the emperor himself, Trajan.
He clearly didn't know much about the Christians. I don't think he even know the reason why Christians were outlawed.
In any case, they were not simply persecuted because of their belief. And I doubt very much that the Romans were interested in the contents of disciples' gospels, letters, let alone the book of Revelation. You're only assuming that John wrote what he wrote in Revelation, could have had him martyred had it gone in Roman's hands; it is just speculation.
Last edited:
keeperoftheprison
Member
The Romans were not interested in the Christians or Jews. That point of yours is true, but they were interested in the revolts that they were worried about and fighting at the time. I also admitted that we will never know what would have happened if the Romans would have understood Revelations, but it is clearly written in a way that Romans would not understand it if they had not studied the Old Testament very well. It's hard for me to accept that it was written this way for no apparent reason. (In my opinion) God inspired John to write Revelation in such a manner and God knows the reasons why.
Christians and Jews were considered the same to the Romans just as you said, but riots were going on and that's what bothered the Roman authorities. They only wanted to keep control of their empire. The statesmen of the time had to walk a fine line to keep the Jewish and Christian people happy enough not to revolt while keeping order in their assigned territory. Jesus made that hard to do and that is why the Roman authorities called for Jesus to be put to death with pressure from the Jews.
idea
Question Everything
gnostic
The Lost One
keeperoftheprison said:
Keeper, I think even the Jewish and Greek Christians of that time would have had hard time deciphering the gibberish of the Revelation, let alone the pagan Romans.
Sorry, but I don't buy for one moment that any Roman would be interested in religious writings from a Christian.
Were the Romans interested in any of the gospel or letter? No.
And I'd hardly think they would be interested in religious prophecy given by some backwater disciple of Jesus.
keeperoftheprison said:
True.
In the beginning, the Romans were willing to not interfere with Jewish religion, customs and traditions, especially in the reigns of Augustus and his successor, Tiberius. Caligula changed that when he wanted a statue of himself built and placed in the Temple. The Judaeans were at the point of full-scale rebellion, but luckily war was diverted because of Caligula's death, and because Claudius didn't have the same plan as did his nephew. Though there were relative peace at Judaea, during Claudius' reign, there were a lot of tensions between the Romans and Judaeans. That spill over at the end of Nero's reign. The future emperor, general Vespasian, was the governor of Syria at the time of Jewish rebellion. Upon Vespasian becoming emperor in 69 CE, his son Titus took over the command of the siege of Jerusalem.
It would seem that Revelation was written during the reign of Domitian, another son of Vespasian. Whether it was written by John the apostle, or another namesake (different author), is also in question.
keeperoftheprison
Member
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on why Revelation was written in the way that it was.
I follow Jewish law, and it's not 'Old' at all but a set of living eternal laws
That's an odd way to put it, roll sins over?
Once each year we Jews are required to search our heart and deeds to see if we have fallen short of our duties
If we sin, we can at any time, repent of that sin we don't have to wait until the end of the year
We don't 'roll them over' we are forced to deal with them and not hide them, every year, it's a humbling process as it is meant to be
keeperoftheprison
Member
Ok, I'm trying to figure out a little here about your religious traditions. In what I call the Old Testament, Sacrifices (animals or grain) were given to the Levites to forgive their sin. The sins would then be forgiven for a while, but have to be atoned for again later. Is this not right? It's been a long time since I've looked at that Law.
We no longer offer sacrifices, but prayer in their place, like in Hosea 14:
"Forgive all our sins and receive us graciously, that we may offer the fruit of our lips."
Those sins we pray for forgiveness may be forgiven and forgotten, but if we sin yet again, those new sins must be repented, Judaism has no system to automatically forgive future sins not yet committed
Then again, we also don't believe in the Christian version of 'Original Sin' so we don't think that people can't conquer their sins and be righteous on their own, each person has the free will to sin or not sin
OneThatGotAway
Servant of Yahweh God Almighty
I believe that Yahushuo (Jesus) was with God in the beginning because the following Holy Writings:
"[Yahushuo] answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: "Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? [Yahushuo] said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM. ---- Book of Yachanan (John) 8:54-58
"[Yahushuo] answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: "Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? [Yahushuo] said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM. ---- Book of Yachanan (John) 8:54-58