In the Beginning...

[Lexicus]

Well, there are Christian denominations that don't believe that Jesus and God are the same person, but I think that's rather beside the point. You certainly wouldn't be Catholic, Orthodox or Anglican, no.

Arianism ftw

 

[El_Machinae]

There's obviously a whole complicate back story to your opinion here. You're saying that, even if there is a God and if Jesus is/was that God, that the whole Old Testament is necessarily a load of lies? Do many people subscribe to this idea? I know that Christians hold the New Testament to be more important than the Old, but... you know... they still kind of believe in the Old too right? I mean I thought they did...

There are oodles of stories in the OT that are known to be outright false. And there are oodles of stories for which there's no evidence.

In my mind, rejecting the OT is by far and away one of the best ways of obeying Jesus's commandments. If we reject the bad theology built off of the false tales, why should we accept bad theology based off of the tales for which there is no evidence?

Jesus could well be the Son of God, but it's clear that the gospels have him with the knowledge of a man, and they were compiled by men. He makes mistakes in the NT, but the Jesus of today would say different things.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

The NT is still a book of primitive myths, but it's true that the God of the NT is basically the opposite of the one in the OT.

I like to challenge you on that. How is NT a book of primitive myths?
Also I dont think the God of NT and OT are really an opposing realities. The terrible darker side of the diety may still be relevant even in the times of Jesus and NT only Jesus has perhaps recognised people of his time were of much kinder nature (also due to the justice and discipline of previous centuries) and were in position to be guided by the compassionate and loving aspects of the reality.

 

[Lexicus]

I like to challenge you on that. How is NT a book of primitive myths?

Primitive

relating to, denoting, or preserving the character of an early stage in the evolutionary or historical development of something.

relating to or denoting a preliterate, nonindustrial society or culture characterized by simple social and economic organization.

Myth

a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

Therefore, the New Testament is a book of primitive myths.

Also I dont think the God of NT and OT are really an opposing realities. The terrible darker side of the diety may still be relevant even in the times of Jesus and NT only Jesus has perhaps recognised people of his time were of much kinder nature (also due to the justice and discipline of previous centuries) and were in position to be guided by the compassionate and loving aspects of the reality.

A tremendous amount of intellectual, cultural, and spiritual development took place between the genesis (no pun intended) of the OT and the NT.
The OT's god is hellfire-and-brimstone, eye-for-an-eye, vengeful and jealous. The NT's god is love, the golden rule, and forgiveness, and most importantly eternal life. The culture that produced the OT was far less concerned with eternal life and the kingdom of heaven than the culture that produced the NT.
One can easily see the influences of the Hellenistic and Persian spirituality/philosophy that entered into the tradition between the period that produced the OT and the period that produced the NT. Perhaps it's stretching the point to say they are opposites, but the cultures that produced them are clearly of very different character.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well, there are Christian denominations that don't believe that Jesus and God are the same person, but I think that's rather beside the point. You certainly wouldn't be Catholic, Orthodox or Anglican, no.

I'm confused as to what the point actually is now.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

There are oodles of stories in the OT that are known to be outright false. And there are oodles of stories for which there's no evidence.

In my mind, rejecting the OT is by far and away one of the best ways of obeying Jesus's commandments. If we reject the bad theology built off of the false tales, why should we accept bad theology based off of the tales for which there is no evidence?

Jesus could well be the Son of God, but it's clear that the gospels have him with the knowledge of a man, and they were compiled by men. He makes mistakes in the NT, but the Jesus of today would say different things.

You seem to be half arguing for atheism and half arguing for a reform of Christianty...

I agree that there's no reason to believe any of the Old Testament, but that belief extends to the New Testament too. I've honestly never heard of anyone who's essentially an atheist when it comes to the first but a believer in the second. I find this all very confusing.

 

[El_Machinae]

Why can't it be both an argument for atheism and for a reform of Christianity?

I'm atheist, but I quite like a lot of Jesus's teachings. Some errors, but ehn. But that doesn't stop me from understanding Jesus's vibe at a more meta-level. Someone can be a Christian if they want, but yeah, it does require reinterpreting how to do so, given our knowledge of the bible.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I think the problem is (to me) that you're talking about what Jesus would do and say today from a secular perspective. Which kind of doesn't mean anything.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Some do. But come to the US sometime, you'd be surprised how many people who call themselves Christians are actually way more into the Old Testament than the New.

It's common here, too... that they will pick and choose which parts of both testaments to believe in. I know someone who is adamantly against evolution, despises gay people, and with a straight face told me that my own synopsis of early 1st-century Rome "didn't make sense" because she thinks the entirety of Jesus' life happened between 1 BC and 1 AD. She said it was therefore impossible that the Crucifixion could have happened during the reign of Tiberius, if he didn't become Emperor until 14 AD.

So I explained that "AD" doesn't mean "After Death" and wondered what other bizarre stuff they were teaching in her church.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think the problem is (to me) that you're talking about what Jesus would do and say today from a secular perspective. Which kind of doesn't mean anything.

It's not a secular perspective to not believe in the Flood. It's the modern perspective. Jesus (at the time) believed in the Flood. And thus what he taught incorporated that knowledge. But he'd teach a different thing now, 'cause he'd know better.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It's not a secular perspective to not believe in the Flood. It's the modern perspective. Jesus (at the time) believed in the Flood. And thus what he taught incorporated that knowledge. But he'd teach a different thing now, 'cause he'd know better.

Yes, any new incarnation of god (Christian or otherwise) who was preaching today would have to preach with a modern take on things. He/she could not get away with supporting the new Noah's Ark theme park or a 6000 year old earth. I suppose that they would support the old teachings as "true enough for their times", but now is the time to move along.

IIRC the most recent new religions that have broken new ground are the Mormons, Bahais and Scientologists. Most of the rest have just tried to extend the reach of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Christianity. Often they have done so in strange ways.

 

[Lexicus]

It's common here, too... that they will pick and choose which parts of both testaments to believe in.

Inevitable, given the number of contradictions in the Bible.
Now amusingly someone will probably try to claim there are none, when of course the fact that there are contradictions in a document written, edited, translated, officially edited, translated again, etc. over a period of some twenty-five centuries shouldn't really be held against it

 

[Birdjaguar]

But how likely is it that modern Christians will accept a returning messiah who says "the bible is out dated and I have a new one"?

 

[warpus]

Imagine if Jesus came back and tried to do the exact same thing he did 2,000 years ago. He would end up being perceived as just another crazy person who hangs out at the corner and preaches about stuff. There are tons of people wandering around who were inspired by Jesus. They wander the streets, preach about stuff Jesus used to preach about, talk about the end of the world, the second coming, etc. Jesus can't do that. He would be lost in a sea of wannabe prophets/crazy people. Sure, if he starts walking on water and bringing people back from the dead, people are going to notice, but if anything then he'd get abducted by the CIA and studied so that American soldiers can walk on water too or whatever. Plus I believe I remember hearing something that Jesus/God don't go out of their way to prove their God-ness. So it seems if Jesus came back he wouldn't necessarily try to prove to us that he's got powers and is the legitimate son of God.

The situation and type of prophet needed to convince people today is a completely different proposition than the same thing 2,000 years ago. If Jesus is real, and he's God, he knows this. He's not going to come back as the same thing he did 2,000 years ago, he's not a fool, he's going to be one of us, normal people. Maybe a lawyer, maybe a software engineer, maybe a fast food joint worker - somebody people can relate to to some degree, not somebody most people will ignore right off the bat.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

It's not a secular perspective to not believe in the Flood. It's the modern perspective. Jesus (at the time) believed in the Flood. And thus what he taught incorporated that knowledge. But he'd teach a different thing now, 'cause he'd know better.

It's surely a secular perspective to talk about Jesus as if he didn't know things and would know better now. You know... given who Jesus is. To talk about him as if he's just some regular dude is the secular bit.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Inevitable, given the number of contradictions in the Bible.
Now amusingly someone will probably try to claim there are none, when of course the fact that there are contradictions in a document written, edited, translated, officially edited, translated again, etc. over a period of some twenty-five centuries shouldn't really be held against it

I hold that against it. If God existed, and if he was perfect, then the book he supposedly wrote/inspired (depending on which religion/sect you're talking to) should be perfect, too.

It isn't. There are occasional interesting parts, and my grandfather - an atheist - told me the only part of the New Testament that ever made any sense to him was the "Golden Rule." That one makes logical sense for any civilized society. But as time has passed, it seems to have morphed into "Do unto others before they do unto you"... and the implication is that what is being "done" is all the nasty, negative, harmful things that people do to each other nowadays ("get them before they get you").

The news site where I get my morning and evening newsfeeds isn't perfect. It's often inconsistent, and some of the "journalists" have at best an elementary school acquaintance with science, or at least that's the impression I get from a couple of them. But at least it doesn't claim to be divinely inspired, or written by a deity personally.

A couple of my favorite SF authors couldn't even be bothered to keep the internal chronology of their series consistent. It's been driving me nuts, trying to do a wiki of F.M. Busby's Hulzein Saga series - that's only 8 books - and yet there are some major, irreconcilable continuity errors in them. And it's especially annoying because he made relativity and how it affects interstellar economy, warfare, and even interpersonal relationships within families major parts of the overall plot. Then he didn't bother paying attention to his own in-universe rules.

But how likely is it that modern Christians will accept a returning messiah who says "the bible is out dated and I have a new one"?

It works fine for the scientific method.

That's one of the fundamental problems with some Christian groups. They refuse to accept new information and discard the old, even when the evidence is staring them in the face that the old information is wrong, and the actions that stem from keeping the old information/ideas are harmful.

 

[Lexicus]

I hold that against it. If God existed, and if he was perfect, then the book he supposedly wrote/inspired (depending on which religion/sect you're talking to) should be perfect, too.

But we know that the Bible is just a book of primitive myths, not the inerrant word of God. Many people who consider themselves Christians know this too.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

But we know that the Bible is just a book of primitive myths, not the inerrant word of God. Many people who consider themselves Christians know this too.

I'm aware of that. My point was that IF the bible really was written/inspired by this supposedly perfect God/Jesus, it should be perfect, and it isn't.

It was interesting to see a documentary (the name of it escapes me; it was many years ago and I saw it on TV) in which bible scholars stated their views that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses never really existed, that they were all just characters in stories intended to teach lessons, not real history.

 

[Berzerker]

The Jewish encyclopedia states that the term "earth" by itself can mean soil or an element. When combined with the term "heaven" it means universe.

God named the dry land Earth, if it aint dry land it aint Earth, its without form and void. And Heaven is the firmament placed amidst the waters...the waters were there first. Heaven cant be the universe. Heaven and Earth were made on the 2nd and 3rd days. Gen 1:1 cant be the first sentence of the story because the earth wasn't dry until the 3rd day. In the beginning refers to the beginning of Heaven and Earth, not the beginning of water or the world it covered, or the sun and moon... etc.

Genesis said the water was divided

By what? The universe? No, by Heaven... And this happened on the 2nd day. So this world (not Earth) acquired a new orbit/spin on the 1st day - the separation of darkness and light. On the 2nd the firmament or hammered bracelet called Heaven divides the waters above from the waters below (and the waters below become our oceans). If Heaven is the asteroid belt, it does divide the waters - it splits the solar system in two and occupies the snow line.

We call everything about the planet even the atmosphere as all being part of the planet earth.

Genesis calls the dry land Earth

The Solar system was already in place it just needed to be put in motion. That is the connotation that one gets when it says that God separated the light from the darkness. The light was every where. I was taught that it was the sun light, but rotation determines night and day, not the sun.

Rotation near a star produces night and day... light wasn't everywhere, it followed the darkness. This world was further from the sun where it was much darker and the light and its separation from the darkness describes this world moving closer to the sun.

The earth was still just a swirling mass surrounded by water, and had no form and was void (empty).

It had to have form if it was surrounded by water, it just didn't have the form of dry land.

I just don't see Genesis as God coming along after the fact and just creating life on earth.

Thats how the Babylonians described creation, Marduk arrives late in the story and slays tehom/Tiamat to form Heaven and Earth. And that chronology is found all over the world, the water precedes the appearance of God.

Why would Genesis be interpreted any other way than God created the universe out of nothing, but his thought and word?

The universe is not mentioned in Genesis, the story is about how this world came to have continents and life. Thats ~4 bya, not over 13...

 

[Birdjaguar]

Imagine if Jesus came back and tried to do the exact same thing he did 2,000 years ago. He would end up being perceived as just another crazy person who hangs out at the corner and preaches about stuff. There are tons of people wandering around who were inspired by Jesus. They wander the streets, preach about stuff Jesus used to preach about, talk about the end of the world, the second coming, etc. Jesus can't do that. He would be lost in a sea of wannabe prophets/crazy people. Sure, if he starts walking on water and bringing people back from the dead, people are going to notice, but if anything then he'd get abducted by the CIA and studied so that American soldiers can walk on water too or whatever. Plus I believe I remember hearing something that Jesus/God don't go out of their way to prove their God-ness. So it seems if Jesus came back he wouldn't necessarily try to prove to us that he's got powers and is the legitimate son of God.

The situation and type of prophet needed to convince people today is a completely different proposition than the same thing 2,000 years ago. If Jesus is real, and he's God, he knows this. He's not going to come back as the same thing he did 2,000 years ago, he's not a fool, he's going to be one of us, normal people. Maybe a lawyer, maybe a software engineer, maybe a fast food joint worker - somebody people can relate to to some degree, not somebody most people will ignore right off the bat.

I think we missed him. He showed up as Steve Jobs this time around and the iPhone was his message. It is the path the the future and our universal happiness. Do you really think that Apple was just a random pick for the company name? No siree. In just a few short years his devotees have converted much of the world without any recall of any of the world's other great religions.

Android users don't despair; the next iPhone is on the horizon.