sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
So is proven through scholarly criticism.So thinks you.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So is proven through scholarly criticism.So thinks you.
BZZZZZZZT!!! I’m sorry, your answer is incorrect. I’m afraid you’ve been eliminated from the game, but you won’t go home empty-handed. You’re leaving with a lovely parting gift; the home version of our game: Get. A. Clue!Not really, it was mostly written by the same mystery school, by different people and times but bares single purpose.
Nice fairy tale.Have you ever wondered why Jesus spoke in parables that not even his own disciples could not understand?
Well, I studied to find out. And what I learned was that only those who were interested enough did he reveal what they meant. Only to the ones who truly believed he was who he claimed to be and wanted to understand the truth behind what he spoke.
No, a parable is meant to appeal to the gut, not the head.Parables are meant to close the eyes not open them.
Intuition isn’t very useful in the exegetical process. In fact, it usually gets in the way.I have my own intuition and also read a lot of Gnostic sources, especially Rudolf Steiner. I have a good Idea what Christ Jesus was about.
His navel?What exactly did you study?
Criticism gave you a Bible to read.It is how theism works, who cares about criticism, lack of spirit.
Actually, as a Rabbi, he did.That is an idiotic thing to say. Jesus never read a word of our scriptures.
Jordan fades back... he shoots... and that’s the ball game!Thoughtlessly accepting them without proof or criticism isn't studying the scriptures
Consider that that’s not God’s intention.I totally agree. God would have the wisdom to ensure that there could be no misunderstandings or contradictions.
Should they be?The damage here is that there is no way to reconcile the 4 gospel narratives.
Jesus was perhaps an Essene. But that’s not the same thing as a gnostic.That does not bother me. Christ was a Gnostic so, was Christianity. You can not see it, many can not.
Why you think so?This assertion simply isn’t cogent.
I do not know you, I choose just ignore your game.for nowBZZZZZZZT!!! I’m sorry, your answer is incorrect. I’m afraid you’ve been eliminated from the game, but you won’t go home empty-handed. You’re leaving with a lovely parting gift; the home version of our game: Get. A. Clue!
Agree on an Essene, they used Gnostic MO.Jesus was perhaps an Essene. But that’s not the same thing as a gnostic.
I do need to say, though, that his theology was sound. The love he spoke of, his parables, etc.
I can't find fault with his teachings.
How does it follow that inspiration cannot produce contradiction?
Or we do not understand " Perfect God".If a Perfect God wants to inspire a book about salvation shouldn't he proof read what his writers write so there no confusion and hundred of denominations don't pop up. But it follows that a perfect all powerful god should be able to handle writting a clear forward book. Yet since the bible is not like that God doesn't exist.
Or we do not understand " Perfect God".
I understand enlightened and learned were used to read and explain Scripture, now Gideon's BIble can be found any motel room.No thats not right too, because a perfect god would dumb it down enough for us. I'm sorry, but the bible is proof enough that the Christian concept of an all powerful all knowing perfect god does not exist.