1. 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!

Did Jesus free us from the Law?

Discussion in 'Biblical Debates' started by Mister Emu, Jun 14, 2005.

  1. blueman

    blueman God's Warrior

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Messages:
    1,066
    Ratings:
    +66
    You had false teachers at that time claiming Paul's message was false and Paul reinforcing to the church body that he wasn't. So what? You pointing to biblical scripture pointing this out proves what? That Paul was defending himself against the attacks of other so called teachers of that time? :)
     
  2. john313

    john313 warrior-poet

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    Messages:
    879
    Ratings:
    +73
    Funny that these same texts call James the Righteous teacher. How could that be if their message was the same, the same as the message of Jesus? Paul was defending himself against the attacks of the Jerusalem church, headed by James, the "Righteous Teacher."
     
  3. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,196
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    Sorry...

    He never said that. You are twisting words yet once more.
     
  4. john313

    john313 warrior-poet

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    Messages:
    879
    Ratings:
    +73
    to whom and what are you referring?
     
  5. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,196
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    To Youm, and post #42.
     
  6. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,562
    Ratings:
    +1,319
    Religion:
    Christian
    NetDoc,

    That quote is not the KJV.

    KJV says "But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile."
    I think there is a big difference between that and saying "I took you in by deceit."

    Edit: Also John, I would like you to cite evidence that the Church of Jerusalem led by James, was attacking Paul. I did not see any such in previous posts.
     
  7. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,196
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    He does love to twist the Scriptures. Thanks for pointing that out.
     
  8. James the Persian

    James the Persian Dreptcredincios Crestin

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,416
    Ratings:
    +656
    Now to deal with this nonsense. The following quote is from www.earlychristianwritings.com on the Gospel of the Nazoreans:

    It is neither the original Gospel, nor was it originally written in Aramaic, it wasn't even a wholly original text, being based on Matthew, and nor did a single Church Father claim that it was the original Gospel. In fact the issue of which Gospels would be considered canonical was pretty much settled before this work was first mentioned. In addition, considering the very few fragments of the Gospel of the Nazoreans that are to be found in early Church documents of any sort, I find the claim "This ancient scripture, hidden away for centuries in a Tibetan monastery, seems in virtually every respect identical to the work by the same title, that was known and widely quoted from in the first century by the church" to be problematic to say the least, and that's without mentioning the fact that it wasn't even referred to by anyone until the late 2nd century.

    Nothing I can find on 'The Gospel of the Holy Twelve' suggests that it is either this Gospel or genuine. The story that it was found in a Tibetan Buddhist monastery where it had been preserved by the Nazirenes is also highly suspicious, given Tibet's popularity in the 19th century imagination as an ancient source for all things ancient and religious. The biggest problem with the story, though, is the inconvenient fact that Buddhism didn't even begin to penetrate Tibet until 10th century AD. Prior to that the religion had been a pagan one called Bon (and as an ex-Karma Kagyu Buddhist, I know what I'm talking about here). How then did the Nazirenes, who disappear from history hundreds of years earlier manage this feat? Time travel?

    James
     
  9. blueman

    blueman God's Warrior

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Messages:
    1,066
    Ratings:
    +66
    It is not same message of Jesus. It is in contrast to not only the Gospel of Christ that Paul preached, but also Matthew Mark, John, Peter and in the book of James, who many attribute these teachings to Jesus's brother. Your doctrine is flawed and full of holes. It cannot stand on it's own when compared to the Holy Bible. :)
     
  10. john313

    john313 warrior-poet

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    Messages:
    879
    Ratings:
    +73
    if you are referring to my signature, there is hadith stating he did say that, it is not from the bible. That is the only quote i see.
     
  11. john313

    john313 warrior-poet

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    Messages:
    879
    Ratings:
    +73
    Peace,
    Sorry, but guile is : deceitful, cunning according to merriam webster. If you need a dictionary you should be able to find one online. They mean exactly the same thing. I would recommend the books The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians and James the Brother of Jesus Both great books by Robert EisenmanProfessor of Middle East Religions and Archeology and Director of the Institute for Judeo-Christian Origins at California State University and visiting Senior member of Linacre College, Oxford University. He discusses in depth the texts and the "Liar" and "Righteous Teacher".
     
  12. john313

    john313 warrior-poet

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    Messages:
    879
    Ratings:
    +73
    please see my last post. There are many dictionaries online if you need to look up words like guile, deceit. Thanks for the lie about me as well. But i guess there is no sin on you since you believe in human sacrifice.
     
  13. john313

    john313 warrior-poet

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    Messages:
    879
    Ratings:
    +73
    http://www.karenlyster.com/arch.html
    Tibet may have been mainly pagan, i do not know enough about it to debate, but that does not mean they did not have the gospel in their possession. Having it does not mean they followed it.
     
  14. john313

    john313 warrior-poet

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    Messages:
    879
    Ratings:
    +73
    What i was saying in my post was that if the messages of James, Jesus, and Paul were all the same, then why did texts call Paul "the Liar" and call James "the Righteous Teacher" at the same time? Were the writers insane?
    My apologies if i was unclear in my post.
    I will say "my" doctrine is not full of holes until someone has some sort of proof otherwise, i have not yet seen it.
     
  15. john313

    john313 warrior-poet

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    Messages:
    879
    Ratings:
    +73
    do you ever feel like you are all alone :)
     
  16. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,562
    Ratings:
    +1,319
    Religion:
    Christian
    I wasn't talking about guile, I was talking about a difference between caught, and took you in, it completley changes the verse.
     
  17. john313

    john313 warrior-poet

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    Messages:
    879
    Ratings:
    +73
    Sorry, i misunderstood. When we look at the original text language we find that:
    lambano {lam-ban'-o} is our word in question. There are a few differrent possibilities for translation into English:
    http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1119156843-4527.html


    1) to take

    a) to take with the hand, lay hold of, any person or thing in order to use it

    1) to take up a thing to be carried

    2) to take upon one's self

    b) to take in order to carry away

    1) without the notion of violence, i,e to remove, take away

    c) to take what is one's own, to take to one's self, to make one's own

    1) to claim, procure, for one's self

    a) to associate with one's self as companion, attendant

    2) of that which when taken is not let go, to seize, to lay hold of, apprehend

    3) to take by craft (our catch, used of hunters, fisherman, etc.), to circumvent one by fraud

    4) to take to one's self, lay hold upon, take possession of, i.e. to appropriate to one's self

    5) catch at, reach after, strive to obtain

    6) to take a thing due, to collect, gather (tribute)

    d) to take

    1) to admit, receive

    2) to receive what is offered

    3) not to refuse or reject

    4) to receive a person, give him access to one's self,

    a) to regard any one's power, rank, external circumstances, and on that account to do some injustice or neglect something

    e) to take, to choose, select

    f) to take beginning, to prove anything, to make a trial of, to experience 2) to receive (what is given), to gain, get, obtain, to get back
    For Synonyms see entry 5877

    -You can decide for yourself. I do not agree with caught. The original translation i posted is just as valid as the KJV when we look at the original language. I think "caught you with guile" and "took you in by deceit" mean the same thing. Maybe we should start a poll to see what others think. Let the masses decide :)
     
  18. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,196
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    I gonna trust God instead. Thanks anyway!
     
  19. john313

    john313 warrior-poet

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    Messages:
    879
    Ratings:
    +73
    you can do that, but God did not translate the bible into English, that was humans.
     
  20. James the Persian

    James the Persian Dreptcredincios Crestin

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,416
    Ratings:
    +656
    Right, firstly I'll deal with your quote. Just because someone claims something on the internet does not make it fact (at least this quote has a more realistic date though). Firstly I'd like to point out that neither Origen nor Eusebius are Church Fathers, though they are useful sources. Couple that fact with the use of St. as a title only for Jerome when there are at least 4 more saints in the list, and I'm a little dubious as to precisely how educated on the subject the writer is. As to those mentioned, I am pretty familiar with St. Basil the Great and St. Irenaeus of Lyons. To my knowledge neither of them ever claimed the Gospel of the Nazoreans/Nazirenes was the original Gospel (as far as I can ascertain neither of them mentioned it at all and certainly never quoted it) and in fact Jerome mentions it as being used by the Ebionites, who were a condemned Judaising sect and so those Fathers who do mention the text are far from positive towards it. Continuing down your list, I have read all the extant works of Eusebius and he definitely doesn't claim this Gospel as the original and I'm quite familiar with the one mention of the text by Hegesippus, which is completely neutral towards it. It seems to me as though the list of 'fathers' was made up by searching their works for the words 'gospel' and 'nazirene' and then accepting the names returned uncritically. Find me one Father (so not heretics like Origen) who referred to this text as the original Gospel (or even referred to an original Gospel at all) and your argument would hold more weight. If your sources are reputable (which they don't appear to be) then this should be easy for you to find - supporting Patristic quotations must be mentioned on their websites. Surely?

    As for the belief that pagans could have looked after a copy of a Gospel they presumably considered as worthless (they clearly didn't follow any Christian teachings). I'd say it was pretty flipping far fetched. For a start, the Tibetans wouldn't have been able to read it, so they wouldn't have been able to make any copies in case something happened to the original. The Tibetans were even illiterate in their own language until their script was invented in the Buddhist era, so why on earth word they have striven to protect a largely worthless set of scratchings on parchment for several centuries prior to the Buddhists arriving and, presumably miraculously, seeing their worth? Why would the Buddhists have seen any worth in them at all and how could they, given that north Indians don't tend to be fluent in written Aramaic? And, finally, who on earth could possibly believe that a bunch of Nazirenes travelling west to escape persecution would stop in a valley way up in the Himalayas, look around them at the primitive, illiterate, animist Bon natives and go, 'Ahah! The perfect place to preserve our texts!'. No, the story only makes sense, and not much even then, if the Buddhist monastery in question existed when the text arrived. This whole story is, to me, a prime example of 19th century fascination with Tibet coupled with a not uncommon tendency in the same period's Protestant churches to turn out new prophets with new (but in various different ways legitimised) Christian texts.

    If you ever do bother to read the extant fragments of the Gospel of the Nazoreans (which, incidentally is believed to have been written between 100-160 AD and certainly is later than Matthew, a point you failed to address after my last post) then I'm sure you'll be struck dumb by the sheer banality of the differences between it and Matthew, things like whether the bread in the Lord's prayer should be daily or tomorrow's, or whether Jerusalem should actually be rendered as the Holy City. There's not enough difference there for a theologoumenon, let alone a different religion.

    James
     
Loading...