In The Beginning There Was No Yahweh

Just some food for thought or thoughts. 

In the beginning there was a primordial soup of precursors to what eventually became one celled organisms. Life.

That is science. We are not addressing that. 

How can we not address science in all aspects of reality?

"...much of the Torah, is not meant to be read literally but rather as a parable."

As I have said now many times, the Torah (the Old Testament) is allegorical, cannot be considered factual, but IMO it represents evolution.  The fact that the name imposed for "God" is unpronounceable, or meant to be so, is because we will never know if "God" truly exists. There will be theories, there will be stories, there will be beliefs, there will be conjecture and even dismissal, but they are no more than attempts to establish an understanding for that which will never be understandable. 

You bring up several interesting thoughts Buzz, that can be expounded upon. Let's see where they take us.

Yep. Stopped believing in Santa and the Easter bunny long ago. Studied some JKD but never met Bruce.

Sorry, cjcold, but I'm at a loss when it comes to acroyms.

So right from the start referring to God as Yahweh is wrong. It is trying to pronounce a word never meant to be pronounced and in fact, would be profane to pronounce ever. 

As happened often, it seems the translation from Hebrew to Greek introduced a subtle change in how the tetragrammaton (אדוני) was viewed.   It shifted into four consonants that were then later pronounced as Yahweh.    

It is interesting to review the history of the Christian Bible (Bibles really) and ponder the changes that have occurred from all those influences (and human tweaking, errors, additions) over a couple thousand years.    And then consider the oral tradition that pre-dated the Bible such as (notably) the Epic of Gilgamesh and the many variations (no doubt) of those stories.

So ... in the end, what exactly is the modern Christian Bible?    And why (how?) do people take it to be divine?

So ... in the end, what exactly is the modern Christian Bible? 

Technically, it's the blending of the Torah, which is the 5 books of Moses stories, psalms, and laws with a totally different kind of text, the story of Jesus' life and death as told by 4 different people.

And why (how?) do people take it to be divine?

We don't know if any of it is divine or divinely inspired, or just stories to explain what could not be explained and facing death. But then again, it's a matter of faith and that is about knowing the unknowable. 

We don't know if any of it is divine or divinely inspired ...

But there is no single 'it'.   There are many 'its'.   Even of one of the 'its' is divine (even in part) or divinely inspired, how does anyone know they have the right 'it'?    In result, if one cannot be sure if any of the Bible (the one they use) is divine then on what basis is it taken as such?

... it's a matter of faith ...

And because faith does not provide qualifying information, everyone can have their own unique interpretation of the Bible and believe it to be truth.

But there is no single 'it'.   There are many 'its'.   Even of one of the 'its' is divine (even in part) or divinely inspired, how does anyone know they have the right 'it'? 

You don't know. I would say stick more to the law, and less to the stories. 

In result, if one cannot be sure if any of the Bible (the one they use) is divine then on what basis is it taken as such?

It is the book that basically brought law and order to a rowdy crowd. Someone had an inspiration of some sort to do that.

We don't know if any of it is divine or divinely inspired,

To be clear, we don't know if any of what is divine or divinely inspired?

1. The Torah? The Prophets? The Old Testament?
2. The New Testament?
3. All of the above?

I'm thinking none of the above. Religion is for folk who are incapable of understanding the scientific method.

What is there to not understand about the scientific method when one looks into it, Cj'?

Religion is for folk who are incapable of understanding the scientific method.

Interesting statement.

I think I understand the scientific method, and I have faith in the existence of God.

Could you develop your affirmation?

There may be semantic problems. For example, your definition of "religion": do you mean organized religion (churches), or any relationship with God? Or something else?

To be clear, we don't know if any of what is divine or divinely inspired?

1. The Torah? The Prophets? The Old Testament?
2. The New Testament?
3. All of the above?

Probably a big hunk of the OT. The NT is kind of different since at least one of the books, Matthew, was written by a person who knew Jesus. We also have the Dead Sea Scrolls that verify Jesus lived. The son of god part, can't be proved. 

Actually, I do not have a way to respond to what you have written which is concise. "Thousands" of books and points of view have been put forth long before my birth and since it that make the case (arguments) for how and why these books have spiritual legitimacy, formidability, and potency to change and comfort people.

What I do find exciting and interesting is this discussion itself! That is, the orthodox Jewish believers in God does not accept the messiah-ship of Jesus; the Christian believers reach back into the Old Testament and dig up spiritual gems pointing to Jesus (the Christ) for whom the New Testament is based; Jewish believers mostly discount the Gospels and see no point in bringing up Paul the Apostle's letters.  Fascinatingly, it is Paul who actually literally creates the 'bridge' between Judaism and Christianity which keeps the two faiths connected under one God!

One can wonder after just how much Jewish and Christian laity learn about the "deep things" of each faith, respectively. Or, even where to go to have such things readily explained. This is "food for thought."

What I do find exciting and interesting is this discussion itself! That is, the orthodox Jewish believers in God does not accept the messiah-ship of Jesus;

There are reasons for that, but I don't want to get into something that might seem confrontational. 

the Christian believers reach back into the Old Testament and dig up spiritualgemspointing to Jesus (the Christ) for whom the New Testament is based;

It would only be logical since Jesus was born and died a Jew. He was considered a rabbi.

Jewish believers mostly discount the Gospels and see no point in bringing up Paul the Apostle's letters.  Fascinatingly, it is Paul who actually literally creates the 'bridge' between Judaism and Christianity which keeps the two faiths connected under one God.

OK, this is where Jews have a parting of the ways. What Saul/Paul did was make a new religion. He even fought with James about giving up specific rules to increase converts. Yet, converting people is against Jewish law. People who want to convert to Judaism must ask 3 times to show their sincerity and that they do this of their own free will. Free will is the basis of Judaism, even if the stories of the OT don't reflect that. 

Another bit or Irony. It is probably a bet that the modern world would never have heard of Jesus (as Christ) leading to a religion of Christianity if not for the work and labors of Paul!

After all, Jews placed no great value in Jesus, and the (Jewish) Apostles did not extend contend with Gentiles. Paul was the '13th apostle sent to the Gentiles.'

That is, the orthodox Jewish believers in God does not accept the messiah-ship of Jesus

If one accepts Jesus as messiah... then one is a Christian, not a Jew.

After all, Jews placed no great value in Jesus, and the (Jewish) Apostles did not extend contend with Gentiles. Paul was the '13th apostle sent to the Gentiles.'

That is not exactly true. 

The first Christians were called Jewish Christians since they were all Jews who followed Jesus and they also followed Jewish traditions. It was Paul, who decided that those traditions were no longer needed to get the Greeks to convert. He was more interested in conversions, which is against Jewish law. Did the end justify the means? Would Jesus have approved? No one can answer these questions for sure, other than he said to go and preach his teachings. There is many a rabbi who would do that now.

If one accepts Jesus as messiah... then one is a Christian, not a Jew.

That is both true and untrue. Again, we have to get into definitions and here one needs to define the word Messiah for Jews. Messiah or in Hebrew, mashiach (מָשִׁיחַ), means anointed, as in a lineage from the "House of David". Now Jews are waiting for the Messiah to come, but for them, he only comes once. But before he comes there has to be specific events before his future arrival, including the unification of the tribes of Israel, the gathering of all Jews to Israel, and the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem, the ushering in of a Messianic Age of global universal peace, and eternal life. But he is not the son of God, nor does he have to suffer for our sins. This is specific to the Christian concept of Messiah. 

How is it that the president of the United States can deny the reality of AGW?

Without Paul, it's not at all sure that Christianity would be a worldwide religion today.

Without Paul, perhaps Christianity would resemble Christ.

Where do you glean these ideas about Paul? I am curious. I daresay that since the Book of Acts (of the Apostles) is outside of the Gospels, that perhaps you do not fully appreciate how Paul came to describe himself as the 13th Apostle? I could certainly be wrong too, so I proceed with caution. (Smile.)

That said, take a look around at the majority of churches in Christendom and you will find a positive status for the work/ministry of Paul. 

Am I responsible somehow for 'madfolks' who walk in pride upon this Earth? It is a grand earth and many dead, dying, and living madfolks, Cj!

I take no responsibility for President Donald Trump's entire temperamental 'run' as president and chief spokesperson for the United States.

Cal,

Of course churches in Christendom will have a positive status for the work/ministry of Paul, because he was the first to spread the faith out of the Jewish Christain world. It doesn't mean that he didn't change what Jesus wanted. Jesus, being a good Jew, for instance, would have wanted everyone to be circumcised, yet it was Paul who went against James on this. I know Christians say that the new covenant was with Jesus, yet Jesus being raised a Jew, was circumcised, because not to be, would be out not following Moses anymore, which as you have pointed out, was essential to him being considered the Messiah. 

Of course, Jesus was a dutiful Jew. None of what Jesus did was at cross-purposes to his mission. However, Jesus was meant to have a flock (among the Jews) and:

John 10:16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen [Gentiles]. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

Of course, Jesus was crucified. So what then? The other flock would be unfulfilled and not 'brought in'?! As we can see today, 'God provided. . . .' and, someone (Paul) was detailed to the gentiles to begin the church age.

Thank you for sharing. (I am a tad distracted on a project as I write this short comment.)

John 10:16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen [Gentiles]. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

The thing about John is that it was written the farthest from the death of Jesus (100-110 years later) and so his Gospel is the least reliable as to what Jesus actually said or didn't say. 

Of course, Jesus was crucified. So what then?

The Jewish Christians were doing well and could have gone on to be their own faith without conversion of other people and kept the traditions that Jesus kept. 

The Jewish Christians were doing well and could have gone on to be their own faith without conversion of other people and kept the traditions that Jesus kept.

Yes... but sooner or later there would be an apostle to the heathens, and the question of specifically Jewish laws would have arisen.

There are an infinity of alternate histories.

Or not. 

It could have gone the way that Jews themselves went, and just splintered off due to different interpretations. I do realize that this is all hypothesizing, but I think only Jesus would have known what he wanted, and since Paul arrived on the scene after Jesus's death, it would kind of hard for him to talk for Jesus. In that sense only his brother James really knew Jesus's intent and he said it was to keep the old ways. 

The thing about John is that it was written the farthest from the death of Jesus (100-110 years later) and so his Gospel is the least reliable as to what Jesus actually said or didn't say. 

John is liberally dated as 65 AD and as late as 95 AD, or 110 A.D. What's in a date when John is an Apostle, who incidentally was the same disciple, "Jesus loved" and who laid his head on Jesus bosom, and was present at Gethsemane when Jesus prayed before his crucifixion. It is reasonable to assume his memories of such profound/impactful events would last lifelong, in my opinion.

The Jewish Christians were doing well and could have gone on to be their own faith without conversion of other people and kept the traditions that Jesus kept. 

Not sure if I can remark on this. Except to say that it is remarkable if the 12 Apostles were called, Christians. Only Paul was 'sent' to the Gentiles where the branding label, Christians originated. (Smile.)

Jesus Himself was a Jew, obeying the rules. He was very clear that "love one another" overrode all others, but the old laws rarely come in conflict with His One Commandment, so He followed them.

I know of no episode where He reflects on heathens as followers. Clearly, He accepted them - the Samaritan, the Centurion,  ... But I know of no sermon/parable concerning the ritual obligations of such persons.

If that flash of light had spooked Saul's horse, we might have a very different history.

You will clearly read nothing about original sin. That is because this story, as much of the Torah, is not meant to be read literally but rather as a parable. Now I can go on with all the different interpretations of this story. . . .

My friend Perrie, you do and must accept that the revelation of Jesus The Christ extends beyond the Law and the Prophets, thus introducing, expanding, and deepening concepts based on the whole of the books agreed upon?

(Just came across this one. It's late. Tired. Good night.)

Jesus did not speak of original sin.   Original sin (the contemporary version wherein everyone is born a sinner) is a product of biblical exegesis that evolved well after the NT was completed.

This question is specifically to Perrie, Tig. I desire to 'hear' and learn from somebody who has a  perspective nearer to the Bible's subject matter. Your position while interesting at times is well-known and established as majorly partisan against the Bible as it exist today.

That said, I am well-aware of how the Church came about its current Bible and its doctrine of original sin. And for church purposes, church doctrine extends beyond the four gospels. I am aware that some critical thinkers do not respect the writings of Paul. And that will be a 'long' bone of contention where this specific doctrine of original sin is concerned.

This question is specifically to Perrie, Tig.

My comment does not prevent Perrie from authoring a response.

Ultimately Jesus did not comment on Original Sin — the concept came from other sources.   Does it make sense then to deem Original Sin part of Christianity?

Ultimately, what is the symbolic role of the Church (on Earth)?

Tig?

Ultimately Jesus did not comment on Original Sin — the concept came from other sources.   Does it make sense then to deem Original Sin part of Christianity?

I would think not. There are many reasons to believe in what Jesus preached since most of it be good to one another. It wasn't, be good to one another because if you don't, then original sin will catch up to you and believing in me will be your only way out. In fact, to the contrary, Jesus asks God, “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing". He asks for their forgiveness even though they don't believe, and that flies in the face "original sin", since what could be more sinful than killing a just man, never mind the son of God, if you are a believer?

This is kinda off-topic, but if we're allowed to discuss Original Sin...

Personally, I cannot find compatibility between "God is good" and Original Sin. One or the other must be false.

Since I firmly believe that God is good and that good is God... I reject Original Sin.

Personally, I cannot find compatibility between "God is good" and Original Sin. One or the other must be false. Since I firmly believe that God is good and that good is God... I reject Original Sin.

IMHO, I would agree with you. I would think that if God is good, that his creations great and small, are also good and are not born with sin but we chose to do bad (sin),

Exactly.

Sorry CB I have no respect for your induced, extreme, theocratic fantasies. In fact, you're starting to scare me.

You scare easily? Really?

Cj,

This is just an educational exercise and really should not be personal in nature. Thanx!

Just trying to have fun, exchange ideas and stay within the guidelines. (theocracy scares me like clowns scare others.)

My friend Perrie, you do and must accept that the revelation of Jesus The Christ extends beyond the Law and the Prophets, thus introducing, expanding, and deepening concepts based on the whole of the books agreed upon?

That is an odd statement (?). I don't have to accept the revelation of Jesus. There are many faiths that don't. I do accept that he lived and preached as a Rabbi would preach. But the two books are kind of incompatible. Just the fact that the name of God is wrong, presents a problem. It means that something gets lost in translation. How do we go from there? Maybe revisiting the old texts?

that the name of God is wrong,

Seems that there are thousands of names for god/s. Every culture or hamlet invented their own.

Can't swing a dead cat without hitting somebodies god.

Don't worry about imaginary gods. Worry about the insanity that makes one a follower of one.

Don't worry about imaginary gods. Worry about the insanity that makes one a follower of one.

Or one can say, is that the concept of "God" prevents people from going insane. Why do you think there are so many faces of "God" out there.

Now that mankind has science for answers, we don't need thunder gods.

That's because it's not mentioned in the Torah.

I have asked one simple question to every person I have met who calls themselves a preacher. so far no replies.

what scripture did jesus follow, and base his life/acts on?

this may sound sarcastic at first glance but is a serious question.  as I believe jesus was following a scripture. in order to "fulfill the scriptures prophecy.

jesus: "But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"

I suspect that scripture jesus was following came from the torah. / which is so far "unconfirmed" but my best guess.

 if im right, a person following a script on purpose knowing that it leads to his death? that takes some real balz. but"suicide does not start religions,, LOL    it takes someone seen as a martyr to start the worlds biggest religion, nothing less

  and, if puzzles were easy they would not be interesting

I suspect that scripture jesus was following came from the torah.

The evidence (i.e. the 'facts' as claimed in the Bible) suggest that Jesus was Jewish and thus naturally would hold the Torah as His baseline.   Given Jesus often quoted from the Torah better confirms this hypothesis.

if im right, a person following a script on purpose knowing that it leads to his death?

Pretty sure Jewish eschatology does not equate the Messiah with Jesus.

Pretty sure Jewish eschatology does not equate the Messiah with Jesus.

did that stop jesus from following the torahs scriptures to fulfill a prophecy and build a NEW church?

I'm pretty sure jesus did not hold with everything in the jewish eschatology of the times or he would have thrown rocks like the rest.

cheers

did that stop jesus from following the torahs scriptures to fulfill a prophecy and build a NEW church?

But he didn't according to the OT/Torah. And the prophecy is to RE-build the temple, not build a new church. As a Jew, Jesus wouldn't have said anything different. (and yes I know Peter was the rock...etc). If he did say that, it would have been blasphemy for lack of a better word. 

I'm pretty sure jesus did not hold with everything in the jewish eschatology of the times or he would have thrown rocks like the rest.

Pacifism was preached at the time, but Jesus did it best and it is found in Torah.

And the prophecy is to RE-build the temple, not build a new church

that might have been the prophecy he read..   but that does not mean that's what he did.

  if you know of this scripture he may or may not have followed.  gimme a link? id like to read it.

cheers

What was the timeline given to rebuilding the temple?  Is the temple not being rebuilt right now?  The way I see it, if it weren't for the Christians making it possible for the Jewish to retake Israel, the temple would never have a chance of being rebuilt, so it took time but the temple will be rebuilt, so the prophecy will be fulfilled. 

what scripture did jesus follow, and base his life/acts on?

He followed Jewish law. Even the "Last Supper" was the Passover Sadar. 

Since Jesus never existed, your question is moot.

Actually, Jesus the man did exist. The one thing about the Roman's is they were very good record keepers, and this is documented by them, as well as in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Jesus the Son of God, is a matter of faith.

BTW Perrie, what is your view of the Book of Hebrews in the New Testament is it acceptable reading?

I would not be able to answer that question, in the context of this discussion, since that is a NT book, and I am not judging it. From a Jewish perspective, the NT holds no value.  

Odd, "no value" is a judgment, no?

Okay, I am not being facetious or unnecessarily difficult, but on what do you base an acceptance on Jesus as a Rabbi, teacher, and whatever if not his 'background' found in the New Testament writings?

No good, no good, no good!

This just cannot be borne. An fascinating article, and at the end a link that took me down a two-hour rabbit-hole.

I have things to do!

This just cannot be borne. An fascinating article, and at the end a link that took me down a two-hour rabbit-hole.

You were only supposed to read 2 verses on one page and one other whole page. I hardly would call that "War and Peace". 

How about addressing the article... 

Pronouncing The Divine Name

God has revealed His divine name in Scripture – so shouldn’t we call Him by it? This is a question that many Christians have wrestled with, though conclusions on the matter tend to differ. Before telling you my conclusion, let’s explore the issue a bit further.

What is the Divine Name?

Referred to as the Tetragrammaton (literally, “four letters”), the divine name involves four Hebrew consonants, transliterated as YHWH. According to one count, the name is used a whopping 6,828 times in the Hebrew Bible. The divine name is derived from the Hebrew verb meaning ‘to be.’ As such, when the people of Israel used this term, they were essentially affirming that their God was ‘He who exists,’ over and against idols who were merely the work of human hands, with no real existence beyond their physical representation.

How was the Divine Name Pronounced in Ancient Israel?

Scholars tend to agree that ‘Yahweh’ is a reasonable representation of how the divine name was originally pronounced by the Ancient Israelites.

The often-used pronunciation ‘Jehovah’ stems from a misunderstanding. It came about like this. The original text of the Old Testament had no vowels – only consonants. This may seem awkward, but y cn ndrstnd ths, rght? The original Hebrew reader would have known just what vowels to supply – like you do with English.

Later on, Jewish scribes added vowels to preserve what they perceived to be the correct reading of the text – though these vowels are not considered part of the inspired text. When they came across the divine name, YHWH, they would add the vowels of the word ‘my Lord’ (adonai) to remind the reader not to pronounce the name, but to say adonai instead.

If YHWH was preceded or followed by the actual word adonai, then the vowels for the word ‘God’ (elohim) were used instead. In this case, the reader was supposed to say adonai elohim.

In neither case was it the intent for the reader to pronounce the consonants YHWH with the vowels of adonai or elohim, but rather a reminder not to pronounce YHWH at all! Many years later, it was through people mistakenly reading YHWH with the vowels for adonai that the pronunciation ‘Jehovah’ came about.

Today, it is common for Jews, when referring to the Tetragrammaton, to simply say hashem meaning ‘the name.’

Why Don’t Jews Pronounce the Divine Name?

Religious Jews no longer pronounce the Tetragrammaton. There are two main reasons why.

The first reason stems from a desire to be reverent, and avoid taking God’s name in vain. If no one says the divine name, then they can’t take it in vain. Problem solved. Further, to avoid misusing the name in writing, some Jews will not even write the word ‘God’ in their correspondence, but will write ‘G-d’ instead. Others will substitute different letters for the Tetragrammaton, or will separate the letters with hyphens (Y-H-W-H).

The second reason is because they believe usage of the divine name to be one of the signs of Messiah. When Messiah comes, he will pronounce the unspeakable name of God. Interestingly, it so happens that a Messianic pretender used this fact to try and underscore his false claim. In 1663, Nathan of Gaza, a Jew living in the land of Israel, and a student of Kabbalah (the mystical books and practices of Judaism), became convinced that a man with the name Shabbetai Tzvi was the actual messiah. In 1665, Shabbetai Tzvi revealed his messiahship to the world, by proclaiming the Tetragrammaton – a practice forbidden by all except for the Jewish high priest in the Temple in Jerusalem on the Day of Atonement. However, after Shabbetai Tzvi later converted to Islam, hopes in the authenticity of his messiahship were dashed.

Why I don’t pronounce the Divine Name

I do not think it is a sin, or even wrong to pronounce the divine name, as long as it is used in a reverent manner. However, I still do not pronounce it for two reasons:

1. Having studied under Jewish teachers (or teachers who themselves had Jewish teachers) I am used to saying adonai instead of ‘Yahweh.’

2. This second reason, for me, is the stronger one. I once attended a conference that was trying to bridge the gap between Jews and Evangelical Christians. One of the speakers, a well-known Evangelical scholar, went on eloquently about his topic, all the while pronouncing the divine name as ‘Yahweh.’ As he did, I noticed that some of the Jewish scholars present were so appalled that they were physically shaking. So then, for the sake of not offending our Jewish friends (we Christians seem to have been experts at that in the past) I have chosen not to pronounce the divine name. As I see it, there is no reason to erect an unnecessary wall between us.

Bob,

Hebrew is Hebrew. And since no one was around to actually know how it was said, why assume that it was said  YHWH? Those are just the letters that are unpronounceable. The reasoning for this is even more unprovable, since this language has been handed down for generations, and although I am sure it changed (the difference between prayer Hebrew with vowels and modern Hebrew without vowels for example), the words do sound and have the same meaning. 

And Jews do not use the word ‘Jehovah’. Here is why:

The first [error] is the attempt to read the Y-H-V-H with the vowels that appear with it in the printed Tanach text. While the vowels are actually the vowels of the word Adon-oi, the Chataf Patach under the Alef of Adon-oi changes to a Shevah under the Yud of Y-H-V-H. The second mistake is that the English readers took the German transliteration of the mistaken reading –Jehovah- and pronounced the letter J as a J. In German the letter J is pronounced as a Y. Thus, the German really reads Yehovah. Nevertheless, whether you pronounce it as the Germans did or as the Americans do, the word Jehovah/Yehovah is total gibberish and has no sanctity whatsoever according to the halacha. Modern scholars introduced an equally erroneous pronunciation, again based on the German, of Yahweh. This word is also gibberish and has no meaning or legal standing. (The How & Why of Jewish Prayer p.531) jidaily

I love articles like this. Reading the Bible is linguistic archaeology. Cultural forensics. A door to a world long disappeared.

One article leads to another... That's my two-hour rabbit-hole.

Ah, now I understand. The limitations of the written word.

Studied anthropology as a minor back in my KU days. Loved knapping arrowheads. Still do to this day. A guy down the road constructs traditional bows and we trade.

Cool!

Grew up with fellow craftsmen and became a wood carver among other things.

I regard original sin as the development of "self-regard" that comes from self-consciousness. That was an evolutionary step. Animals don't care if they pick their ass in public, they might even show it to you while they do it. Human beings have a sense of shame that comes from self-consciousness and I think that is the meaning of the story of Adam and Eve. 

That's a good and interesting point, JR. Men and women were pulling themselves (and the natural creation) away from the spiritual protection which attended their early time on Earth. Whereas like the other animals in creation mankind was naked, protected (as in a "Eden" reserve), and unashamed.

After spiritually disconnecting themselves from God, now, Adam and Eve (these people) would have to cover themselves, seek protection elsewhere, and develop civilized communities with rules they would strive for/ to govern their 'appetites.' 

After spiritually disconnecting themselves from God, now, Adam and Eve (these people) would have to cover themselves, seek protection elsewhere, and develop civilized communities with rules they would strive for/ to govern their 'appetites.' 

That is not a Judaic interpretation of the story, but it is an interesting view. 

Until human beings developed self-consciousness they couldn't do anything wrong (or right). Animals don't have right and wrong. 

There is the concept in Christianity of "fallen" (don't know if it is in Judaism), which implies that the human race descended from a higher plane, but in doing so they also came out of it with "dominion" over the lower creatures. We are the only species, as far as we know, that can think about what we are doing even while we do it. 

The "sin" of self-consciousness is associated with the loss of innocence. 

Also explains the idea that life is a "school" with lessons to be learned. Again, animals don't learn lessons in terms of being able to consciously reflect on their mistakes. 

I would love, and I think others would like to consider the Judaic interpretation of the story. We get so little of the Judaic perspective in these discussions. It is seriously needed, in my opinion!

There is the concept in Christianity of "fallen" (don't know if it is in Judaism), which implies that the human race descended from a higher plane, but in doing so they also came out of it with "dominion" over the lower creatures.

My understanding is this, and John you can tell me if you are going in a different direction. Biblical-speaking, God gave dominion of the Earth to humanity (as its Steward) over this abode (see Genesis).

Mankind was to keep his stead under God's  grace , but in Adam and Eve, humanity , "fell from grace " when given a test to continue under God's steady control. Adam and Eve (humanity) chose to go their own way in furtherance of life apart from spiritual connectivity to God. In essence, man severed the God-man connection to Grace) .

For this determination, humanity were removed fro m its spiritual and likely physical homestead as innocent in the eyes of God and send out to develop in a natural state alone.

Mankind's relationship with the Creator was severed; but humanity's stewardship over the animals remained in place ("achieve dominion over all the Earth).

Romans 5:12-15 ¹² Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned- ¹³ To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone's account where there is no law. ¹⁴ Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. ¹⁵ But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many.

God didn't explain "why" the apple was forbidden.

I've always read the apple as being the combo "free will /  self-consciousness". A dog has free will, but doesn't understand consequences. A person has free choice, and importantly the capacity to understand consequences.

A dog lives in a bliss of ignorance - a Garden of Eden. Humanity ate he apple...

I am unaware of any sermon/parable of Christ that indicates He believed in Original Sin.

I'm pretty sure that's a post-Jesus "addition". It's an idea that is unnecessary.

1. The concept of original sin bears out from Genesis' curse of Adam (humanity).

For what is 'original' 'sin' but 'first' and 'sin'? Adam's sin caused a spiritual void to open between God and humanity, which sought to go its own way.

Jesus came to restore the connection between God and man. Thus, the veil of the Temple was ripped which separated God from man spiritually, at Jesus' death. I can build on all this if you wish it.

Moreover, in the temptations of Jesus:

Matthew 4:

8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” 10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’

2. Bob , I ask you where, when, and from whom did the devil acquire 'dominion' over the Earth? And moreover, what did Jesus mean when he stated after he had risen :

18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."?

I ask you where, when, and from whom did the devil acquire 'dominion'...

The idea of "Satan" is incompatible with "God is good".

The idea of "Satan" is incompatible with "God is good".

Indeed. Besides, what has Satan done that's so bad, especially compared to what God has done, which is not entirely good.

The thing is, is that there are so many interpretations. In practice, Judaism is about looking for different truths within the stories. Different levels of understanding. That is why Jews have another text, "The Talmud" which in essence are discussions on these stories. One story could be days of interpretations. 

Mankind was to keep his stead under God's  grace, but in Adam and Eve, humanity, "fell from grace" when given a test to continue under God's steady control. Adam and Eve (humanity) chose to go their own way in furtherance of life apart from spiritual connectivity to God. In essence, man severed the God-man connection to Grace) .

That is not the message of the story of the Garden of Edan. There is no concept of grace, so Adam and Eve didn't fall from grace. What they did, on a simple level, was not follow god's directive, and for that, they are punished, but they also gained "Knowledge". Of course, I am only giving you the straight-up version of this story.

A dog lives in a bliss of ignorance - a Garden of Eden. Humanity ate he apple...

You are getting it. Knowledge comes with a price. 

But again, original sin is not in the OT. And Satan, is not viewed so much as an individual, but rather a force that is put in ones way, to deter them from doing something right. So in the garden, the serpent might represent the devil to Christians, but to Jews, he is punished after tempting Adam and Eve, along with them. There is a concept for Evil, but it dwells within all of us when we chose badly. 

The idea of "Satan" is incompatible with "God is good".

Quite so.

Indeed. Besides, what has Satan done that's so bad, especially compared to what God has done, which is not entirely good.

As Spock would say, "Fascinating", since there is much truth to that.

... original sin is not in the OT.

Nor in the NT. It is a later accretion

Besides, what has Satan done that's so bad, especially compared to what God has done, which is not entirely good.

Do you believe in God? If yes, is She gentle or harsh? Kind or cruel?

If you do not believe in God, how can you ascribe anything, good or evil, to Him?

If you do not believe in God, how can you ascribe anything, good or evil, to Him?

One need not believe in a character to analyze same.   The Bible defines a God and thus God can be analyzed per the source (the Bible).

I have analyzed the character Voldemort in the Harry Potter series and conclude that Lord Voldemort is a bad wizard.   ( I do not believe Voldemort exists. )

Of course, I am only giving you the straight-up version of this story.

"Straight-up" is the only way to go. "Interpretation" is too free-form.

The Bible defines a God and thus God can be analyzed per the source (the Bible).

Of course. With the obligation of indicating the framework within which one is operating. I did not understand any such limitation.

There is absolutely nothing "fascinating" about a creature for who existence is to separate a creator from its Creator, in my opinion. This is why after its purpose is served evil and its 'testor' will be put away from humanity.

That is another separate thought, no? Did you mean to dodge the questions pulled from Matthew 4 and 8 or was this other topic just to 'tempting' to pass on? (Smile.)

You can see this happening in Christianity. Bar none, exegesis and hermaneutics are the most exasperating concept for non-believers who question everything about why religion impacts the human spirit. I would state it this way, God's spirit works through the narratives, thus, keeping aspects of Ancient Israel's nationalism and intend to be a 'people of God' relevant throughout all ages.

Even more interesting is that the Bible accounts for non-believers who were clearly very 'smart' (not fine) people running aside the spirituality of the times. And in the new testament era, the book of First Peter writes about 'latter day' scoffers.

In this way, the books of the Bible express this proposition about humanity: There is nothing (not much) new about the human spirit under the sun! (Compare Ecclesiastes 1:9.)

No. It's a way of saying that your question is meaningless.

Actually, I quoted from the book of Matthew and it by definition is relevant and not an "addition" to your mind as you told John Russell:

I am unaware of any sermon/parable of Christ that indicates He believed in Original Sin. I'm pretty sure that's a post-Jesus "addition". It's an idea that is unnecessary.

Those are your words! I supplied Matthew's words and you dismiss me? Bob Nelson, do you want a discussion on how the doctrine of original sin appeared in theology or just to pontificate against it?

I am unaware of any sermon/parable of Christ that indicates He believed in Original Sin.

I insist.

I cannot find anything in your posts that show Jesus speaking of original sin.

Original sin was invented long after the NT was completed.   

I can't meet mind to mind with you about the words on the pages of Matthew, then, . . .what's there to engage? You place no stock in Paul's writings either. I know this from past endeavors.Is this exchange futile?

I offer my earlier discussion to you then, Tig:

What is 'original' 'sin' but 'first' and 'sin'? Adam's sin caused a spiritual void to open between God and humanity, which sought to go its own way.

Jesus came to restore the connection between God and man. Thus, the veil of the Temple was ripped which separated God from man spiritually, at Jesus' death.

Moreover, in the temptations of Jesus:

Matthew 4:

8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” 10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’

2. Tig , I ask you where, when, and from whom did the devil acquire 'dominion' over the Earth? And moreover, what did Jesus mean when he stated after he had risen :

18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."?

Note: I started here with Bob, because I know that Bob is not a respecter of Paul's writings (epistles). Bob can correct me if I am wrong, but my impression is he is more of a "four gospels ('red letters' - Jesus only)" reader. (Smile.)

You I do not think I will have that kind of circumstance with, but if you are open let's start where Bob refused to engage.

Here I see a problem that is staring us in the face. It is the problem of sourcing.

I offer (Jewish) Apostle John who knew Jesus , if that is what you mean by stating above that the book of Matthew was written by a person who knew Jesus .

John 5: 39 You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me.

Straightway the question is can you accept the 'testimony' of the Book of John? Or, do you restrict your reading to the Gospel of Matthew alone?

If you accept the Book of John, then it is explicitly putting forward that the Old Testament books, each in its term, of the Bible are testifying about Jesus. What is called for (and done by the organized Church) is to comb through the books of the Old Testament looking for references relevant to the personage of Jesus.

The effect of this being, that the Old Testament books/writers were doing "double-duty" of building a material people - Israel in the natural and writing forward in time in the spirit !

Is this exchange futile?

You've been trying to tie Christ to the doctrine of Original Sin. I don't think there's anything in His sermons/parables to that effect.

As the saying goes, put up or shut up.

What is 'original' 'sin' but 'first' and 'sin'?

It is quite a bit more than that.   The concept of Original Sin includes the notion that sin is inherited by all of human kind and that the punishment for Adam & Eve's disobedience falls on all of their progeny.   It is quite a bit more than the 'first sin'.

Tig, I ask you where, when, and from whom did the devil acquire 'dominion' over the Earth? 

Why are you asking me?   Which interpretation of the Bible do you want to hear and why does that matter?   The Jehovah's Witnesses version is that Satan rebelled and tempted Adam & Eve who then are considered to have rebelled.   Meanwhile God is sitting back letting this all happen.   Another illogical story in my opinion.   Which story do you prefer?   (BTW, the serpent in Judaism is not considered to be Satan.)

Now, back to the actual item I raised, where do you see Jesus speaking of Original Sin?   Your response did not show Jesus speaking of Original Sin.   And, as I noted, that is exactly what one would expect because the Original Sin concept is a 2^nd century invention.

It is quite a bit more than the 'first sin'.

...

... where do you see Jesus speaking of Original Sin?

And Satan, is not viewed so much as an individual, but rather a force that is put in ones way, to deter them from doing something right.

Then who is Jesus having an ongoing 'trial' with in the narrative? Even when it is allowed to be a "meditative state" after multiple days of fasting depravity that it is a vision , the point put forward is Jesus encountered a being (on the spiritual plane) making an undeniable offer for which the cost is his, Jesus', soul and his service to God.

So the question stands.

Q. W here, when, and from whom did the devil, identified in the writings, acquire 'dominion' over the Earth? And moreover, what did Jesus mean when he stated after he had risen :

18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."?

What I put up is from the pages of a Gospel, specifically Matthew. After which I asked a several basic questions from the displayed text. Then, for some reason you dismissed the writer and turned to confront me. Why not deal with the questions asked, Bob? Why drag this off-course?

The question put another way (from the text): How is it Satan had control over kingdoms of this world to offer Jesus in the first place?

First off that is the problem with "jumping headlong" into other people discussions and trying to make it your own. As it EVER crossed your mind that where I might start a discussion with someone else may not be how I would proceed with you - someone who professes no spiritual knowledge/faith at all?

Secondly, what INTERPRETATION of the Bible do you think I am using when I quote from Matthews and post it?

Thirdly, why did you drag "Jehovah's Witness" into this. I simply quoted from the New Testament scripture which takes no account of a denominations/sect/cult?

Lastly, you simply want to push disagreement. My comment is not about Anselm or when Original Sin appeared in doctrinal/revelation. You should have 'discerned' that by now! Instead, you double-down on argument and distrust.

I am 'bout done with it too.

Satan is just an allegory for temptation.

Now... I've answered your question. Please answer ours: How can you tie Christ to a notion (Original Sin) that did not yet exist in His day?

Belief is not necessary to analyze a character. All that's needed is a logical analysis of the information given or known about the character. Belief is irrelevant to that. I can analyze god just as much as I can with Darth Vader, given what information is provided  about them.

First off that is the problem with "jumping headlong" into other people discussions and trying to make it your own.

Of course (déjà vu) here you go making things personal.   

what INTERPRETATION of the Bible do you think I am using when I quote from Matthews and post it?

What is with the pointless questions?   If you have an answer just present it.

why did you drag "Jehovah's Witness" into this. I simply quoted from the New Testament scripture which takes no account of a denominations/sect/cult?

Ever hear of an example supporting a point?   You ignore the point and instead complain about the example.

The result of your post is a non answer to my observation that Original Sin was a 2^nd century invention.   Instead of getting personal and tossing out pointless questions, it would have been better to not reply at all.

I agree.

I have had it up to my eyeballs with this brand of BS. Good bye, Tig.

How do you know Satan is not a spirit, Bob Nelson? Is Jesus a spirit now or an allegory? And if the second what is your point for believing in Jesus (I think I read that you do believe - but I could be wrong - but I doubt at this point you would tell me if you do believe in Jesus or do not.)

Please answer ours : ( Who the heck is COMMUNICATING with you, Bob? )

How can you tie Christ to a notion (Original Sin) that did not yet exist in His day?

25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself .

1. It is latter day revelation. Jesus did say that he had many things to tell (the church) and the Holy Spirit would supply it. Remember that portion of the Gospels?

2. In the passage above, Jesus connects/links/establishes himself all the way back to Moses and goes beyond in Paul's writing to inform the Church.

But, you have denied Paul a place in your mind and heart, so I am handicapped to not deliver any insight from Paul's writings to the Church age here to you.

How do you know...

I know because I have faith
1 that God exists
2 that God is good
3 and that therefore Satan does not exist

I do not pay much attention to clobbertexting.

You probably should take care not to exploit the word, "clobbertexting." After all, it is the written word that I have provided you, which you ignored in favor of what exactly I do not know. How is the written Bible an offense to a believer in it, anyway?

That stated, if this is going to deteriorate into a  "nothing-burger" of an exchange between us, then we can either move on to something other than Original Sin or cease communication altogether about the Bible.

That's not actually knowing. That's simply believing. But belief does not equal fact.

That's not actually knowing. That's simply believing.

Please take a look at the dictionary definition of "knowledge".

Claiming knowledge or an assertion of something with absolute certainty for which there is no objective or rational basis is logically indefensible. One can "know" god, Satan, Zeus, ect based on what is written about them, but one cannot make a declarative statement of fact without some kind of objective evidence. So when someone states "I know so and so deity exists because faith," that is an illogical assertion with no supporting evidence.

The subtle difference between your and Gordy's position is the notion of objective truth.   One can know that Trump was picked by God to lead the nation (some people 'know' this.)   That does qualify as personal knowledge because it is what one has concluded (personally).   But is that knowledge objectively true?    As an approximation to objective truth, is it supported by solid evidence and/or logic that would generally persuade others to agree?

When one makes a declarative statement such as 'I know God exists' the reader will need to determine (by context) if that is intended to be a statement of objective truth (i.e. 'God exists;  this is a certain objective fact') or a statement of relative truth (i.e. 'God exists to me').

In your comment you noted that your knowledge is a function of faith.   Thus I will take your meaning to be 'God exists to me'.   In other words, you are merely expressing your belief and not making a claim of objective truth.

but one cannot make a declarative statement of fact without some kind of objective evidence.

This is the crux.

I may state "I know God exists". I may not state "God exists."

Nor may anyone state "God does not exist," but "I don't think God exists" is just fine.

All are declarative.

Posted before I saw 9.1.46.

Yup. (I posted 9.1.49 before seeing your post).

Nor may anyone state "God does not exist," but "I don't think God exists" is just fine.

However, on a different tangent, one can state 'God does not exist' and bear the burden of proof.    Here is where the definition of 'God' is absolutely critical.   It is indeed possible to define 'God' in such a way that it can be proved to not exist (per the definition).

Logically, all one need do to prove a particular defined 'God' does not exist is to show that the definition is a logical contradiction.   If so, that 'God' (as defined) is impossible and thus does not exist.

Yes.

If a clear definition of God is given, then it may be possible to show impossibilities.

"No god exists" would be kinda tough, though.

"No god exists"

Yes, that is impossible to defend since it argues against all possible definitions for God.

That is a very interesting viewpoint, John. 

Some of what is being shared here are thoughts straight out the Jesus Seminar, and the movement to reclaim Jesus as Jewish without accepting his claims of divinity or Paul's writings about him.

There is nothing objective to validate any claims of Jesus' divinity or Force powers.

In your opinion and methods of looking for evidence, may be not! You limit yourself on purpose. This does not change the facts of and in this religious faith, nevertheless. You may have heard it stated before: One man's trash is another man's (or woman's) treasure!

For once could those claiming evidence of divinity do something other than merely claim there is 'other' evidence?   Mere claims are not persuasive.   Claims that evidence exists but not until one is receptive to it can it be perceived is not persuasive.   

The problem is not that Gordy's  (et. al.) thinking is limited.   Rather, the problem is that you have a claim that you cannot evidence.

Okay Tig.

Links?

I rarely enter into religious articles/conversations, but I'll make an exception here since it doesn't seem to be one of the ''my religion is best'' articles. 

For the record I'm neither Jewish or Christian. What I find quite interesting is how complicated both religions are. Bibles that are difficult to agree on, word of men as gospel and all the sins and sinners. The painting/statues of what Jesus supposedly looked like (he didn't look like anything that is portrayed currently)..Original sin, what in the world is that about. The list is endless. And don't forget about all the killing, murder and wars that are religious based. 

From a native viewpoint it would seem that none of the Christian religions can agree on much, based on the number of them all claiming to be the ''right'' one. Even among the Jewish there are different sects with different viewpoints. 

When Red Jacket defended the Native religion against the missionaries he made this point quite clearly. 

''Brother, you say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit; if there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agree, as you can all read the book?''

The complete speak is brilliant. To natives that follow our religion (actually its a way of life more than a Western style religion). 

To Natives that follow their old traditional way, in my case it is Midewiwin what Christians and Jews would call Jesus is to us Gitchi Manitou (Great Mystery) The word manitou has several meanings one being spirit and another being mystery. In this case mystery is correct since we do not know and much about it. To us it has no gender nor color. It is simply the great mystery. 

Another things that is strange to us is the building of temples/churches and all the lavish adornments that go with it. Pomp and Circumstance shall we say. 

We do not build temples/churches nor do we have statues/painting of what the mystery looks like. There is no set place/day/or way to connect with the mystery or a particular way. Each person chooses his or her way to connect. 

So you can see the huge difference between our believe systems. 

A quick side note to those of you that believe that the US always has had freedom of religion...It's simply not true. Native religions were outlawed in the late 1800's and from then to the 1940's was considered the ''dark ages'' for Indian believers. It was until 1978 that a law was passed to change this horrific situation. 

A review of ''Indian Boarding School'' late 1800's through 1980's will show you the lengths that the US government and religious groups went to destroy the Indian in Indian our religion/culture and language. 

Waanakiwin. (Peace)

Thank you so much for your comment on this topic. I have been trying to get my head around all this religious fighting as to which is the right religion and which one is the only one.

Like you, I am Native American, and a such, I am not Christian or Jewish or any other organized kind of religion. I practice the the religious beliefs of my ancient Cherokee ancestors. So as far as the Bible and being the Divine Book, or which Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Protestant or other religion is the right one or the only true religion, it is up to those who wish to believe in them, but, I don't.

As you say, the attempts of the Christians to purge the Indian out of the Native American religious beliefs was. and in a good many ways, still is, supposed to be the 'duty' of every God fearing Christian. 

You have described exactly how most Native Americans worship. The only 'Temple' where the Creator is worshiped is our hearts. There is no elaborate ceremony, or a particular place where one should go to worship. In the Cherokee Tribes, it is the woman of the house who determines how the family will worship, and no one else is allowed to interfere with their choice of worship. This is to ensure harmony among the members of the Tribe. 

In my early years I attended many different types of religious churches and temples, such as the Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Buddhist, in order to educate myself of the different religious beliefs and culture. So I am somewhat familiar with those religions and their beliefs and teachings.

However, I found nothing to make me feel lacking with my own Cherokee religious beliefs and teachings regarding Ye ho waah (Creator). 

JMOO

However, I found nothing to make me feel lacking with my own Cherokee religious beliefs and teachings regarding Ye ho waah (Creator). 

Nor should you Raven. Most Indian beliefs are grounded in being good to one another, good stewardship of the earth and the animals, and appreciating each tribes traditions. What could be wrong with that? 

A good many people still think of Native Americans as Godless heathens because we don't have a standardized religion, churches or Temples where we worship at given times and days.

But, if they really took the time to find out the facts about our religions they might find out that we believe in a Supreme Being just as they do. However, I get the impression that they would prefer to stick to their wrong way of thinking rather than admit that they are wrong. 

However, their wrong thinking does not bother me, as I know who is in my heart. And the Creator knows as well. To me, that is all that matters. 

Many believe that their way is the right way. The only right way.

This is profoundly insulting for their God. If God is good, then She will refuse no one who "loves their neighbor", regardless of the path that brings them there.

If God is good (and I refuse any other case), then there can be no single correct path.

But, if they really took the time to find out the facts about our religions they might find out that we believe in a Supreme Being just as they do. However, I get the impression that they would prefer to stick to their wrong way of thinking rather than admit that they are wrong. 

Religions that believe in a creator in the abstract are necessarily far more credible than those who ascribe attributes to their creator.   Christianity, in this regard, is among the least credible because it not only states as certain truth attributes such as:  perfection, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, etc.  but goes on to offer stories which expose God's personality, intentions, emotions, etc.   Christianity thus claims to hold profound objective truth of the creator (the grandest possible entity).   But worse, all these details illustrate contradictions in how God is defined by Christianity.   It makes the Christian definition for God self-refuting.

Pantheistic religions (and I believe Native American religions are properly viewed as pantheistic) basically view God to be nature.    The panentheistic religions are similar but they view God as everything and nature (the universe) is a subset of God.

Because pantheism and panentheism hold few abstract beliefs and have no contradictions, they are profoundly more credible (and logical) than Christianity.

Now, having said that, there are Christians like Bob who hold very abstract beliefs and do not accept as truth much of what Christianity holds as truth.   Bob's Christianity is also profoundly more credible than the Christianity with which we are most familiar.

Christianity, in this regard, is among the least credible because it not only states as certainty attributes such as: perfection, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, etc.

For the umpty-umpth time... Such a sweeping generalization is necessarily false. "Christianity" cannot "state" anything whatsoever because there is no single valid spokesperson.

Christianity, in this regard, is among the least credible because many of its adherents not only state...

For the umpty-umpth time... Such a sweeping generalization is necessarily false. "Christianity" cannot "state" anything whatsoever because there is no single valid spokesperson.

Christianity is a category of religions that are (almost always) based on the resurrection of Jesus Christ and in accordance with the NT (with the OT as the historical backdrop).    

There is no single valid spokesperson but that does not mean we know nothing of Christianity and cannot speak intelligently of Christianity.   Clearly when people need an authoritative source regarding Christianity they turn to the Bible.    And, indeed, the Bible is what I was referring to as the source for defining a self-refuting God.

sweeping generalization

Don't play that game.   It is perfectly legitimate to summarize an abstract concept such as Christianity.   

... the Bible is what I was referring to as the source for defining a self-refuting God.

Thank you for the clarification.

From a native viewpoint it would seem that none of the Christian religions can agree on much, based on the number of them all claiming to be the ''right'' one. Even among the Jewish there are different sects with different viewpoints. 

Friend Kavika, point of clarification, Christianity is one religion and many, many, denominations, many systematized theologies (biblical, systematic, historical, dogmatic, contemporary), and many doctrinal theologies, and many types of theologies (liberal, conservative, reformation, Calvinist, Armenian, dispensational, radical, catholic, socialist, covenant,. . . .) and so forth and so on. All of these deriving from the Gospels and writings of Paul. Why? I don't properly know. Except that. . .there is liberty in Jesus Christ. And,

I agree: Less is better.

But history has recorded all the above "activities" of men and women acting 'as the Spirit leads them' meaning they remain connected to what is considered 'mainstream' Christian religion. Then, come the cults. . . . Oh my!

I do not let it overwhelm me (though it would be nice if large-scale spiritual unification could occur.) It may be that believers will have to patiently wait on that 'age' to come!

Another things that is strange to us is the building of temples/churches and all the lavish adornments that go with it. Pomp and Circumstance shall we say. 

I must correct you there brother. Synagogues are supposed to be simple. There is no Pomp and Circumstance. It is just a house of worship.

As coming from both traditions, I don't see such a huge difference between the two. The great spirit is just god and god is everywhere, just like the great spirit.

I must correct you there brother. Synagogues are supposed to be simple. There is noPomp and Circumstance. It is just a house of worship.

If I remember correctly, Synagogue means ''gathering place''....

In comparison to native places of worship they are not simple...Agree that there are many similarities between the two, IMO the major point of similarity is that neither has used the sword to spread the word/religion. 

Both are very restrictive as to converts to the religion. 

If I remember correctly, Synagogue means ''gathering place''....

Indeedy. 

In comparison to native places of worship they are not simple...

I think that just happened because one culture was more urban and one was with the land.

IMO the major point of similarity is that neither has used the sword to spread the word/religion.  Both are very restrictive as to converts to the religion. 

Correct. 

The Three Fires Midewiwin Lodge symbol. 

It will soon be time for the spring Midewiwin gathering. 

Why is it ….. I NEVER see an in depth critique of the Muslim Religion here ? 

Just wondering !

Probably because there's no one who wants to take the time.

A similar question: Why do we never see any in-depth articles about anything, from you?

Probably because there's no one who wants to take the time.

Why Not ?

"Why do we never see any in-depth articles about anything, from you?"

That was a FUCKING STUPID question. I put up "articles, blogs and seeds", which I NEVER see YOU on .

What's up with that ? You "Can't" take the time to go through them and respond ?

I make it a rule never to participate in mindless Red Meat articles.

I make it a rule never to participate in mindless Red Meat articles.

Yet You will "CREATE" what you say YOU won't participate in ?

Got It !

No. I don't seed anything that isn't documented.

I don't seed anything that isn't documented.

Me Either. Actual "Links" are our Friend.

... depending on where they lead...

... depending on where they lead...

Oh.

This article is petering out without fanfare it seems. However, it has unintentionally made me aware of something important: The people who show up to discuss religion here and elsewhere on NT do not communicate in the same or similar religious or spiritual language, or lack thereof.

That is not a problem for diversity (which we have in religious freedom), but it is one for any meaningful discussion.

The people who show up to discuss religion here and elsewhere on NT do not communicate in the same or similar religious or spiritual language, or lack thereof.

Well ...

According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world.

And countless denominations within Christianity alone.

One thing that is true about religions is that human beings are very good at creating new factions with variations in beliefs and terminology.