Go to BUILDING A NEW RELIGION FROM THE GROUND UP
- Add a comment
- Go to I AM CONVINCED THAT WE DO NOT HAVE AN ACCURATE
son of man, L.E. Gant
in the Old Testament, always referred to a human being.
a psalm goes like this
"What is man that thou art mindful of him
or the son of man that thou regardest him?"
the prophets were called "son of man" by Whoever was addressing them.
I think this was an apellation meant to put them in their place -- telling them that they are ordinary humans beings.
In the Gospels, I feel that Yeshua's use of the "son of man" was dual -- referring mainly to ordinary human beings (which is why the high priest rent his clothing and called it blasphemy when Yeshua said "ye shall see the son of man coming in clouds of glory.", referring to human beings as being equal to god, as I interpret it), but also to himself at times, the apellation not having connotations as a "deified character", but as a human being, applying it as a parallel to the prophets.
posted by
Xeno-x
on May 27, 2005 at 6:54 AM
| link to this | reply
BTW, Christ, in the gospels (all four of them), never refers to himself as "the son of god", but always as the "son of man". Even at his "trial",when asked if he was the son of god, he neither confirms nor denies it - his answer "so you say".
As for Easter and Passover... they do happen to come at the same time of the year.But you are right: Christianity did adopt the "pagan" festival as the marker: European minds were far more receptive to a feast they had been celebrating for longer than the jews had been celebrating passover.
posted by
L.E.Gant
on May 26, 2005 at 2:34 PM
| link to this | reply
Is Jesus who he says he is?
all you have to do is to ask him, and he will let you know. Ask, and it shall be given Seek and ye shall find. Knock and the door shall be opened unto you. Don't look to other people...Look to Jesus Christ for the answers. He's the only one who can answer if he is real...and if the bible is complete.
posted by
sunshinegal
on May 26, 2005 at 10:30 AM
| link to this | reply
ehp my friend
you wont reach the truth via your intellect.
you must receive the truth of God by exercising faith in the redemptive work of Gods Son, and that can only happen when the evidence is not seen.
posted by
calmcantey75
on May 26, 2005 at 9:10 AM
| link to this | reply
none of you has checked the history
bishops of the third, fourth and fifth centuries decided what was to be put into the New Testament.
Before this, there was much disagreement over such things as whether or not to observe Passover, with one disciple of John, who "rested on the lord's lap" advocated its observance, while others (the ones who prevailed) advocated separating from anything Jewish and keeping Easter, which wasn't a Christian festival in the first place, but rather a celebraton of a fertility goddess of pre-Christian times.
then there was the subject of the divinity of the personage born Yeshua, but named Jesus and then Christ. A large number of Christians felt that he was a man, a human like the rest of us; another factoin felt that he was "Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten, not made", that is made flesh by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary. It was this latter attitude that prevailed.
This all over a century and a half after the actual events.
So that, by the time the major decisions were made, they were made by bishops that had accepted the explanations that finally prevailed.
And how did they prevail? A little torture here and there, threat of excommunication, refusal of eucharist, other such "persuasive" means, coercion of many sorts that resembled a Hitlerian scenario rather than a Christian.
So I doubt what we have today. There is some validity that shows through. You can't cover up all that actually happened. Yet there are obvious insertions and such that reflect the belief system of those who lived 300 and 400 years after the actual events. And one obvious change (if you have an interlinear to compare) and that is in Mark's gospel where the women come to the tomb. King James says "as the sun was rising"; while the interlinear says, "as the sun was setting". KJV reflects the Easter Sunrise tradition that had been in place for over a millenium, while the interlinear renders the passage as it actually is, reflecting the Jewish tradition of waiting until sunset of the Sabbath, after the Sabbath was over, to perform the preparation of the body.
My perception is that King James is a reflection of Anglican tradition which is a reflection of medieval Church tradition for over a millenium and a half, which is a reflection of the faction that eventually had prevailed by 400 C.E.
This is why I feel the whole thing needs to be looked at anew.
posted by
Xeno-x
on May 26, 2005 at 6:33 AM
| link to this | reply
Ariala you are so right. One can not get that without having a relationship
with Him.
posted by
Justi
on May 26, 2005 at 1:35 AM
| link to this | reply
nothing new needs to be discovered
all you have to do is some research on the original texts from which King James derived his ( dated old English) interpretations. Thats not to hard to do really.
They will tell you all you need to know.
posted by
calmcantey75
on May 26, 2005 at 12:25 AM
| link to this | reply
The bible, as we know it, has many "books" missing from it. Some were never translated; some were set aside as being obsolete. It's a book that is evolving,and has been for generations,long before Christ. Bits have been added. That's all in the old testament...
As for the new testament, you're right. It has been set up to confirm a specific view of Christ's message. The four gospels were picked because they were (more or less) consistent in their description of the sayings of Christ - the word part of his message. The Acts, and Revelation, were added to show the spread of the "new" religion. Just because Paul (and his patriarchic view) dominates Acts and the letters does not invalidate the gospels.
And weren't the Dead Sea Scrolls supposed to illuminate some of the beliefs from the time?
posted by
L.E.Gant
on May 25, 2005 at 8:46 PM
| link to this | reply
painter, I disagree...I think God is all-powerful and protected His Word...
the Jesus of the Bible is the compassionate, loving, kind and savior He claimed to be.
posted by
Ariala
on May 25, 2005 at 3:49 PM
| link to this | reply