Glass Darkly And Knowing The Truth...

[TedGresham]

I don't know. Let's see what yall think.

 

The Christian Bible is a very strange book. It is, as we all know, a compilation of different writings from many eras and many authors. Christians brag about how it is true and consistent in spite of its diverstity but the obvious reality is the book is full of holes. It's part history, part poetry, part law, part genealogy, part prophecy. It's worshiped as the fourth "god-head" by Christians though they will not ever admit it. Discovering its origins was one major reason I rejected Christianity. Even so, there's something about it that is rather fascinating.

 

The OT is a dead work that should never have been combined with the NT. This is obvious to me. The history of the church indicates it was incorporated so that the law it contained could be forced upon Christian followers. Some of the Psalms are nice, Ecclesiastes and Proverbs has some good stuff in it. But otherwise the OT is really useful only to scholars of ancient peoples. The NT itself is a strange compendium though more consistent than OT gobbledygook. There's the gospels of a man who is called "Son of God" and who is completely ignored by those who claim to worship him. There's writings of a man called Paul who had a nasty temper, was about as self-righteous as can be, but who ranks higher on the scale than the Jesus he claims to serve. And then, of course, there's the "Big R," that bizarre ending that drives people mad. Most ex-C's dismiss the book as fables. So do I, sort'of.

 

Sprinkled through these forums are quotes and references to the book. Bits of it are so bonded to a Christian (and ex-Christian's) psyche that falling back upon references to it are habitual and difficult to stop. For example, I saw that phrase by Paul, "seeing through a glass darkly" in another post. Reading that stirred the will'o-the-whisp in my head about that thing called The Bible.

 

Conspiracy theorists love to look for clues and cues and secret messages. Those two movies by Tom Hanks (Haven't seen either one yet) are very popular. Christians who study "End Times" look for clues. Even 2012'ers think the Bible might have hidden codes. I think it's all bullshit. There are no secret codes. The Bible was assembled by self-serving church leaders in the 3rd century. A bit of research proves their motivation, to create a subservient church that would support Constantine. But there is another odd thing about the Bible that might be similar to "hidden" clues. It is the fact that within the NT there are hints of another and more direct message, words that make sense to many of us Ex-C's and even cause us pause in our exit from the faith. Some bits are valid and obvious reality, truth of the kind found in many other religions, about the nature of man. And there are portions easily recognized as reflections of another ancient belief system: Buddhism.

 

Let me digress. There's a story about a group of sailors captured by the North Koreans, in the sixties I think. I saw the "based on real life" movie. Some of you reading this will probably know more than I about the story. I forget. What I remember is that the men from the captured ship appeared to be cooperating with the NK's, having their picture taken for propaganda. What the Koreans did not notice but Americans did was that in all the photographs the sailors were flipping off the NK's. The propaganda photos became the captives' way of saying "fuck you" to their captors. It wasn't a conspiracy but it was a very subtle message to those able to notice.

 

What if, ...what if there are little bits of NT phraseology left in or inserted by particular church leaders who felt compelled to fall in with those crafting the Bible out of available texts (or were too big of cowards to stand up against them), little bits that were left or inserted so that readers would be encouraged to think for themselves and overcome the lies that the church created. Maybe it was put there or left there so that eventually those who read it would be pushed out of the oppression of the church by their own ability to reason? Something like that. I may be reaching too far, stretching out into nothing, but just suppose....

 

"Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Christianity has never fully explained how freedom can exist in the light of the rules and requirements of Christianity. Being required to accept a particular belief, follow certain rules, etc., is not true freedom. I know, the church says freedom of spirit and etc., but it never really worked for me. The "glass darkly" phrase also doesn't fit. It implies what is being seen then, the teaching of the church or the Bible itself, is not the WHOLE truth. If I wanted to I could find other similar passages that seem to fly in the face of Christian doctrine. Preachers quote them and believers memorize them and still they seem kind'of stupid when one considers how Christians really act and think. "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Right, unless he's Buddhist or Muslim or whatever. I once used these clues to validate Christianity but I have since ceased to believe in a creator and thus Christianity cannot be true. Even so, there are these odd "middle finger" type stabs at Christian doctrine. Why are they there?

 

The other odd thing is how closely the teaching of Jesus is to Buddhism. Buddhists recognize this. Some even consider Jesus a Bodhisattva, a Buddha who gave up paradise to serve humanity. Christianity condemns Buddhism as pagan and evil even as Buddhism embraces the teaching of Jesus. How weird is that?

 

I don't know, it's just some thoughts that keep slipping around in my head like a mouse caught in the house, can't quite see it but the scamper and brief flashes of movement imply its there.

 

What do yall think?

[Legion]

Interesting supposition Ted, very imaginative. Perhaps it could be.

 

But how could we possibly confirm or falsify it?

[TedGresham]

Interesting supposition Ted, very imaginative. Perhaps it could be.

 

But how could we possibly confirm or falsify it?

Ya know, I just don't know. Not without a time machine, maybe. Or someone might create a study to trace the source of original doubts by ex-c's back to where it began. Where did the seed of doubt come from and did the desire to "know the truth and be set free" or the longing to know what can be seen through a clear glass play a part? It did for me. This might not prove the theory, it would be anecdotal, but it would be a place to start. Ya think?

[florduh]

This could be the next Dan Brown book - or the next Gresham blockbuster! The Bible Code is a wink.

[Shyone]

I don't know. Let's see what yall think.

I don't know, it's just some thoughts that keep slipping around in my head like a mouse caught in the house, can't quite see it but the scamper and brief flashes of movement imply its there.

 

What do yall think?

I like the way you think, and you may not be too far off the Mark (pun intended).

 

I think that there were genuinely nice people in early Christianity who wanted to do the right thing. One personality would be the strict legalist, another the bleeding heart liberal, maybe another a mystic. Each contributes, and each tries to use his own filter to put forth the best way to live.

 

Which was Jesus? Which of his words are truly his? That is part of the question. Is he the divider of families and bringer of the sword, or is he the love everyone as yourself and forgive your enemies? Is it possible to be both?

 

Some words of Jesus they couldn't throw out. They believed he was God (or something like that) and would be loathe to censor him. They could, however, interpolate what he probably said - which is what would agree with what they would say (this is the way evangelistic preachers still "interpret" god's word. They say what God/Jesus would have said subject to some constraints).

 

I therefore see early Christianity as a tug of war between different ideas, but based in some sense on a core of unchangeable sayings and acts recorded earlier than the gospels themselves.

 

All of them put messages in the text to deliver something to the readers. Not, however, to turn them away, but to make sure they understood the True message - whatever that was to them.

[Loren]

The OT is a dead work that should never have been combined with the NT. This is obvious to me.

Absolutely. Asking any random Rabbi will show that.

There's the gospels of a man who is called "Son of God" and who is completely ignored by those who claim to worship him. There's writings of a man called Paul who had a nasty temper, was about as self-righteous as can be, but who ranks higher on the scale than the Jesus he claims to serve.

Years ago, I did an informal study for my own amusement: I had a radio in the bathroom and I kept it tuned to different Christian radio stations. I had a piece of paper on the wall divided into a grid showing the NT sources (I left the OT out of it.). All I did was make a commitment to turn the radio on every time I was in the bathroom, no matter how long or short. Then, every time a NT source was cited, I'd make a hash-mark by that source. When the first source got to one hundred citations, I'd call an end to my "study." My purpose was to show, despite what the Christian leadership claim, who they truly take their marching orders from. Most sources got about three to five marks, including Jesus. As you can guess, Paul (The Greatest Christian Who Ever Lived) wound up far ahead. If it had been a horse race, Paul would have won it by a whole lap. It was completely amusing, completely disgusting and totally predictable.

 

I saw that phrase by Paul, "seeing through a glass darkly" in another post.

Some time ago, I saw a post on another site where someone wrote, "We but peer in a glass, darkly."

But in one of those weird neurological misfires, what I honestly saw at first glance was, "We put beer in a glass, darkly."

It is the fact that within the NT there are hints of another and more direct message, words that make sense to many of us Ex-C's and even cause us pause in our exit from the faith. Some bits are valid and obvious reality, truth of the kind found in many other religions, about the nature of man. And there are portions easily recognized as reflections of another ancient belief system: Buddhism.

The other odd thing is how closely the teaching of Jesus is to Buddhism. Buddhists recognize this. Some even consider Jesus a Bodhisattva, a Buddha who gave up paradise to serve humanity. Christianity condemns Buddhism as pagan and evil even as Buddhism embraces the teaching of Jesus.

One of the interesting things I noticed about the Gospel of Thomas was it's striking resemblance to the Tao Te Ching: The inside is the outside, not the inside is like the outside, and so forth.

 

What if, ...what if there are little bits of NT phraseology left in or inserted by particular church leaders who felt compelled to fall in with those crafting the Bible out of available texts (or were too big of cowards to stand up against them), little bits that were left or inserted so that readers would be encouraged to think for themselves and overcome the lies that the church created. Maybe it was put there or left there so that eventually those who read it would be pushed out of the oppression of the church by their own ability to reason? Something like that. I may be reaching too far, stretching out into nothing, but just suppose....

I have wondered about that very thing. Frankly, I think there are far too many variables and influences involved. After all is said and done, however, the bottom line I come to is that under any oppressive system, there are secret languages, meta-meanings and double ententes because there must be such in order for the oppressed to communicate with each other in front of their oppressors. I see the secret languages when black people or women are in the same room with white people or men, respectively. The oppressors hear what's being said overtly, but miss what's really being said.

 

"Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Christianity has never fully explained how freedom can exist in the light of the rules and requirements of Christianity. Being required to accept a particular belief, follow certain rules, etc., is not true freedom.

One of the things I'm proud to have never fallen into as a Christian, was the extremity, the reductio ad absurdium of that worship of rules, which leads, pretty inexorably, to people self-policing their thought life with rather insane results. I looked around and saw a huge number of Christians who actually believed that it was sinful and offensive to God to think about such things as the morality of doctrine. This is freedom in Christ? You're not even allowed to think about tenets and doctrine in order to better understand? The only outcome of following that approach is to wind up living out a, "Sit down, shut up and obey," doctrine.

 

I once used these clues to validate Christianity but I have since ceased to believe in a creator and thus Christianity cannot be true. Even so, there are these odd "middle finger" type stabs at Christian doctrine. Why are they there?

While I do think that some of what you mention does have to do with exactly what you're proposing actually happening, I think that in most cases, other factors are far more likely, and they are the types of things which would give the appearance of what you're talking about. Things such as the extreme syncretism of Christianity and it's formation and development being influenced by what trade routes were active at which times and between which cultures.

 

Also, there's the syncretism brought about by those completely cynical arbiters of Christianity who used wording, iconography and myth-form to re-brand Christianity in order to make it more palatable to the, "heathens." Such was deliberate, and could sometimes give the impression (Perhaps accidentally.) of what you're talking about, but actually be complete cynicism on the part of the perpetrators.

[mwc]

"Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Christianity has never fully explained how freedom can exist in the light of the rules and requirements of Christianity. Being required to accept a particular belief, follow certain rules, etc., is not true freedom. I know, the church says freedom of spirit and etc., but it never really worked for me. The "glass darkly" phrase also doesn't fit. It implies what is being seen then, the teaching of the church or the Bible itself, is not the WHOLE truth. If I wanted to I could find other similar passages that seem to fly in the face of Christian doctrine. Preachers quote them and believers memorize them and still they seem kind'of stupid when one considers how Christians really act and think. "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Right, unless he's Buddhist or Muslim or whatever. I once used these clues to validate Christianity but I have since ceased to believe in a creator and thus Christianity cannot be true. Even so, there are these odd "middle finger" type stabs at Christian doctrine. Why are they there?

Xianity is all about freedom. You're just living in the wrong place/time. I suggest you take a trip back about 2000 years and try living a "free" life. See how far you get. What xianity offers just may be surprisingly liberal. Especially when you consider they seemed to target women and slaves as initial converts (essentially non-people that had zero rights).

 

The other odd thing is how closely the teaching of Jesus is to Buddhism. Buddhists recognize this. Some even consider Jesus a Bodhisattva, a Buddha who gave up paradise to serve humanity. Christianity condemns Buddhism as pagan and evil even as Buddhism embraces the teaching of Jesus. How weird is that?

Study more religions. Ancient religions in particular. You'll be less impressed. Try ancient Egyptian religion if you want to cut to the chase. It has just about everything you need to bridge the gaps between Buddhism and xianity and was readily available to the Jews especially those living in Alexandria. There's no reason to believe that anyone used it as a template (ie. "jesus" is Horus or whatever) but there's no reason to think they weren't influenced by it either since it was present all around them. There was also a Jewish temple (as evidenced by Josephus) in Egypt as well as Jews living up the Nile at the Elephantine ~700 BCE (if I recall correctly). Evidence of Jews in India? None. Though there are stories of Indians coming through to visit the west on occasion.

 

As for accepting "jesus?" So? Muslims do as well. They can't simply reject such a powerful figure so they may as well include him in their own religion (ie. if you can't beat them, join them). By integrating him they control the story. So they can say that he was the 8th or 9th incarnation of their guy instead of the one and only time the other guy came to the planet. And Muslims can say they're both wrong and he's really a prophet from their guy. It's a nice way to maintain control while accepting the other story.

 

I don't know, it's just some thoughts that keep slipping around in my head like a mouse caught in the house, can't quite see it but the scamper and brief flashes of movement imply its there.

As if you're looking through a glass darkly?

 

Keep in mind that ancient glass wasn't see-through, or crystal clear, like modern glass. It was foggy (though I think there was a claim that one guy did manage to make clear plated glass but was killed for doing so and his idea destroyed). So when they looked through glass they couldn't see clearly. They would only see a rather distorted view of what they were looking at (like looking through coke bottles). The idea would be that we were unable to see things as they truly are as a result. The glass needed to be removed to see clearly.

 

mwc

[TedGresham]

"Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Christianity has never fully explained how freedom can exist in the light of the rules and requirements of Christianity. Being required to accept a particular belief, follow certain rules, etc., is not true freedom. I know, the church says freedom of spirit and etc., but it never really worked for me. The "glass darkly" phrase also doesn't fit. It implies what is being seen then, the teaching of the church or the Bible itself, is not the WHOLE truth. If I wanted to I could find other similar passages that seem to fly in the face of Christian doctrine. Preachers quote them and believers memorize them and still they seem kind'of stupid when one considers how Christians really act and think. "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Right, unless he's Buddhist or Muslim or whatever. I once used these clues to validate Christianity but I have since ceased to believe in a creator and thus Christianity cannot be true. Even so, there are these odd "middle finger" type stabs at Christian doctrine. Why are they there?

Xianity is all about freedom. You're just living in the wrong place/time. I suggest you take a trip back about 2000 years and try living a "free" life. See how far you get. What xianity offers just may be surprisingly liberal. Especially when you consider they seemed to target women and slaves as initial converts (essentially non-people that had zero rights).

 

If you are a true scholar of the Bible and Christianity you'll know that the beliefs of 2000 years ago have no semblance to those that emerged in the 3rd century. The "Bible" did not exist and neither did most if not all the texts that became incorporated into that Bible and neither did the doctrine. Whatever "freedom" there may have been, and there is scant information on what really existed then, died when Constantine became a Christian.

 

There is no freedom in Christianity beyond the 3rd/4th centuries. From then until a couple hundred years ago Christianity was the power behind thrones and the tool of oppression. Since the printing press and especially since people actually started thinking for themselves and became educated Christianity has continued to dominate and rule though in different and more subtle and psychological ways since the power of government was no longer behind it in most nations in the west.

 

How can there be freedom when the very thoughts in our heads are governed, essentially, by god? Christianity was the first to come up with the idea of "thought police," only it was one cop: the "holy spirit."

 

 

The other odd thing is how closely the teaching of Jesus is to Buddhism. Buddhists recognize this. Some even consider Jesus a Bodhisattva, a Buddha who gave up paradise to serve humanity. Christianity condemns Buddhism as pagan and evil even as Buddhism embraces the teaching of Jesus. How weird is that?

Study more religions. Ancient religions in particular. You'll be less impressed. Try ancient Egyptian religion if you want to cut to the chase. It has just about everything you need to bridge the gaps between Buddhism and xianity and was readily available to the Jews especially those living in Alexandria. There's no reason to believe that anyone used it as a template (ie. "jesus" is Horus or whatever) but there's no reason to think they weren't influenced by it either since it was present all around them. There was also a Jewish temple (as evidenced by Josephus) in Egypt as well as Jews living up the Nile at the Elephantine ~700 BCE (if I recall correctly). Evidence of Jews in India? None. Though there are stories of Indians coming through to visit the west on occasion.

 

As for accepting "jesus?" So? Muslims do as well. They can't simply reject such a powerful figure so they may as well include him in their own religion (ie. if you can't beat them, join them). By integrating him they control the story. So they can say that he was the 8th or 9th incarnation of their guy instead of the one and only time the other guy came to the planet. And Muslims can say they're both wrong and he's really a prophet from their guy. It's a nice way to maintain control while accepting the other story.

 

I've studied a few religions. There are moral similarities among all religions. The "law of reciprocity" or "golden rule" is found in dozens, almost all, religions, in some form. What I speak of that is similar to Buddhism is the words of Jesus specifically and specific teachings that parallel Buddha, in some cases almost word for word.

 

I believe Buddhism had a strong influence in first century Christianity. There are scholars who believe the "three wise men" were Buddhist monks. I have no researched that enough to be sure but I have no doubt the similarities are more than coincidence.

 

 

 

I don't know, it's just some thoughts that keep slipping around in my head like a mouse caught in the house, can't quite see it but the scamper and brief flashes of movement imply its there.

As if you're looking through a glass darkly?

 

Keep in mind that ancient glass wasn't see-through, or crystal clear, like modern glass. It was foggy (though I think there was a claim that one guy did manage to make clear plated glass but was killed for doing so and his idea destroyed). So when they looked through glass they couldn't see clearly. They would only see a rather distorted view of what they were looking at (like looking through coke bottles). The idea would be that we were unable to see things as they truly are as a result. The glass needed to be removed to see clearly.

 

mwc

 

Of course the use of "glass darkly" is a reference to ancient glass. But it was a metaphor for being unable to see the whole truth.

 

The phrase comes, of course, from 1. Corinthians 13, verse 12 (I can't believe I'm quoting the book!) where it says, "For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." It's interesting that this chapter is the most ignored chapter in the entire Bible, even though it is written by Paul and not spoken by Jesus. This passage is, or should be, the guide for Christian living. It is so NOT that. Every tenet is ignored. Why, then, did the author of this book (was it Paul or was it Memorex?) include the line about seeing darkly? If the Bible is "inspired" and "prophetic," then why has this most important chapter been so quoted, mis-quoted, and ignored?

 

The previous verse essentially says, "some day I'm going to grow up and recognize this is truth." When? I say that this will happen when human beings stop wallowing in the crap called "doctrine" dished out to them from the church and start recognizing the universal truth that survival of humankind depends not upon some god or some religious text but upon us treating each other as this chapter says to treat each other. Does that chapter even fit among everything else in that book? Or, is it an effort by those who knew what was happening to the text and how it was being transformed to encourage readers to ignore the bullshit.

 

Stuck in here among information about the church and prophecies and so forth is a "more excellent way" (last line of previous verse) than all the other. If Ch13 is "more excellent," why not focus entirely on it rather than all the other stuff? Why not lead the book with those words?

 

I'm no apologist nor a Bible scholar. Some of you can spin webs around my suppositions. I'm just askin', that's all, what if?

[Rev R]

I believe Buddhism had a strong influence in first century Christianity. There are scholars who believe the "three wise men" were Buddhist monks. I have no researched that enough to be sure but I have no doubt the similarities are more than coincidence.

 

That is certainly possible since India was trading with Arabia circa 200's BCE, but I haven't heard of any evidence suggesting such influence (particularly of monks visiting the area). I would guess that any Buddhist influence filtered in indirectly through the Greeks.

[mwc]

If you are a true scholar of the Bible and Christianity you'll know that the beliefs of 2000 years ago have no semblance to those that emerged in the 3rd century. The "Bible" did not exist and neither did most if not all the texts that became incorporated into that Bible and neither did the doctrine. Whatever "freedom" there may have been, and there is scant information on what really existed then, died when Constantine became a Christian.

 

There is no freedom in Christianity beyond the 3rd/4th centuries. From then until a couple hundred years ago Christianity was the power behind thrones and the tool of oppression. Since the printing press and especially since people actually started thinking for themselves and became educated Christianity has continued to dominate and rule though in different and more subtle and psychological ways since the power of government was no longer behind it in most nations in the west.

 

How can there be freedom when the very thoughts in our heads are governed, essentially, by god? Christianity was the first to come up with the idea of "thought police," only it was one cop: the "holy spirit."

How strange you claim that what lies beyond the 3rd/4th century is effectively unknowable and then you go on to tell me how it was.

 

That there was no officially canonized xian bible has no bearing on any of this. If someone can make a promise of hope to a person that has no hope then that is all that matters. That is what I addressed. "Freedom" to a person like a woman or slave (which appear in Paul's writings) would be far different than "freedom" to you or me. It's pretty simple. Even with the all his rules it would be better than having nothing at all.

 

I've studied a few religions. There are moral similarities among all religions. The "law of reciprocity" or "golden rule" is found in dozens, almost all, religions, in some form. What I speak of that is similar to Buddhism is the words of Jesus specifically and specific teachings that parallel Buddha, in some cases almost word for word.

 

I believe Buddhism had a strong influence in first century Christianity. There are scholars who believe the "three wise men" were Buddhist monks. I have no researched that enough to be sure but I have no doubt the similarities are more than coincidence.

Having "jesus" within a foreign religion and having a "moral similarity" are different things. I addressed why these other religions would have "jesus" within their religions. Judaism already had the concept of the "golden rule" so no Buddhism required. Judaism already possessed pretty much all things "jesus." No other religions required.

 

The three magicians (three wise men) are the same word used for Simon Magus. So there's your starting point. There is a reference about Indians coming ~20 BCE to visit Alexander and one lights himself on fire. They are not referenced as magicians. It's one a several visits I recall. None go to Judea specifically though they would have likely passed through on their way.

 

Of course the use of "glass darkly" is a reference to ancient glass. But it was a metaphor for being unable to see the whole truth.

 

The phrase comes, of course, from 1. Corinthians 13, verse 12 (I can't believe I'm quoting the book!) where it says, "For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." It's interesting that this chapter is the most ignored chapter in the entire Bible, even though it is written by Paul and not spoken by Jesus. This passage is, or should be, the guide for Christian living. It is so NOT that. Every tenet is ignored. Why, then, did the author of this book (was it Paul or was it Memorex?) include the line about seeing darkly? If the Bible is "inspired" and "prophetic," then why has this most important chapter been so quoted, mis-quoted, and ignored?

 

The previous verse essentially says, "some day I'm going to grow up and recognize this is truth." When? I say that this will happen when human beings stop wallowing in the crap called "doctrine" dished out to them from the church and start recognizing the universal truth that survival of humankind depends not upon some god or some religious text but upon us treating each other as this chapter says to treat each other. Does that chapter even fit among everything else in that book? Or, is it an effort by those who knew what was happening to the text and how it was being transformed to encourage readers to ignore the bullshit.

 

Stuck in here among information about the church and prophecies and so forth is a "more excellent way" (last line of previous verse) than all the other. If Ch13 is "more excellent," why not focus entirely on it rather than all the other stuff? Why not lead the book with those words?

 

I'm no apologist nor a Bible scholar. Some of you can spin webs around my suppositions. I'm just askin', that's all, what if?

The only way to understand what's being said is to look at what's being said. So you had to quote the stupid verse? Now I get to say...you're taking it out of context. Happy? I now have to quote a whole lot of crap from the book.

 

1 Corinthians 12

 

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and every one of you the separate parts of it. 28 And God has put some in the church, first, Apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then those with wonder-working powers, then those with the power of taking away disease, helpers, wise guides, users of strange tongues. 29 Are all Apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? have all the power of working wonders? 30 Are all able to take away disease? have all the power of tongues? are all able to give their sense? 31 But let your desires be turned to the more important things given by the Spirit. And now I am pointing out to you an even better way.

Paul's trying to stop the in-fighting among the Corinthians. I'm quoting the bit just before where he explains how everything "works" in his version of the church. He's pointing out how not everyone gets the same voodoo magic powers.

 

Then he has the whole chapter on "love" and all that. He's making peace...or trying to.

 

1 Corinthians 14

 

1 Go after love; still desiring to have the things which the Spirit gives, but most of all that you may have the prophet's power. 2 For he who makes use of tongues is not talking to men but to God; because no one has the sense of what he is saying; but in the Spirit he is talking of secret things. 3 But the word of the prophet gives men knowledge and comfort and strength. 4 He who makes use of tongues may do good to himself; but he who gives the prophet's word does good to the church. 5 Now though it is my desire for you all to have the power of tongues, it would give me more pleasure to be hearing the prophet's word from you; for this is a greater thing than using tongues, if the sense is not given at the same time, for the good of the church.

Now once there's "love" then they should try having those gifts of the "spirit." The voodoo powers. But they all want to just sit around speaking in tongues. Babbling like morons. But he already said not everyone can do that though, here, it would be nice since that's talking directly with "god" (just like the oracles babbled). They need something to impress visitors and this isn't going to cut it.

 

12 So if you are desiring the things which the Spirit gives, let your minds be turned first to the things which are for the good of the church. 13 For this reason, let the man who has the power of using tongues make request that he may, at the same time, be able to give the sense.

...

17 For your giving of the blessing is certainly well done, but of no profit to the man without knowledge. 18 I give praise to God that I am able to make use of tongues more than you all: 19 But in the church it would be better for me to make use of five words of which the sense was clear, so that others might have profit, than ten thousand words in a strange tongue.

...

20 My brothers, do not be children in mind: in evil be as little children, but in mind be of full growth.

The church comes first. Stop being kids and grow up. This echoes the last chapter. And he tosses in the middle that he bests them at tongues anyhow. But apparently he uses gibberish to impress the rubes in the church and not to gain converts. He arrogant but not stupid.

 

21 In the law it is said, By men of other tongues and by strange lips will my words come to this people; and not even so will they give ear to me, says the Lord. 22 For this reason tongues are for a sign, not to those who have faith, but to those who have not: but the prophet's word is for those who have faith, and not for the rest who have not.

 

23 If, then, the church has come together, and all are using tongues, and there come in men without knowledge or faith, will they not say that you are unbalanced?

I just like v23.

 

36 What? was it from you that the word of God went out? or did it only come in to you? 37 If any man seems to himself to be a prophet or to have the Spirit, let him take note of the things which I am writing to you, as being the word of the Lord. 38 But if any man is without knowledge, let him be so. 39 So then, my brothers, let it be your chief desire to be prophets; but let no one be stopped from using tongues. 40 Let all things be done in the right and ordered way.

He gives a bunch of rules to them for managing their madness (the tongues, prophecies and whatnot) then says the above. He's "settled" the fight. This is how to be a proper xian. How to run a church. The stuff about "love" in chapter 13 is flowery talk so they'd all just shut up.

 

mwc

[dagnarus]

"Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Christianity has never fully explained how freedom can exist in the light of the rules and requirements of Christianity. Being required to accept a particular belief, follow certain rules, etc., is not true freedom. I know, the church says freedom of spirit and etc., but it never really worked for me. The "glass darkly" phrase also doesn't fit. It implies what is being seen then, the teaching of the church or the Bible itself, is not the WHOLE truth. If I wanted to I could find other similar passages that seem to fly in the face of Christian doctrine. Preachers quote them and believers memorize them and still they seem kind'of stupid when one considers how Christians really act and think. "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Right, unless he's Buddhist or Muslim or whatever. I once used these clues to validate Christianity but I have since ceased to believe in a creator and thus Christianity cannot be true. Even so, there are these odd "middle finger" type stabs at Christian doctrine. Why are they there?

 

There is a simple explanation for these incongruences. The easiest way to enslave someone is to convince them that you have set them free. It's really that simple. You'll notice these and similiar hypocrisies in cults throughout the world. The North Korean government for example is not enslaving the people, there keeping them free from the evil americans, by enslaving them. Do you see how this works?

 

The other point is that hypocrisy and religion seem to go hand in hand. Religious people are experts at seeing the problems in other peoples religions but not seeing the same problems in their own, Jesus is a good example of this. Given that people now fully believe that Christianity has set them free and made them loving etc, without seeing the negative aspects of thier faith, it is not hard to imagine that the people who wrote the original new testament suffered from the same blindness.

[TedGresham]

Thank you, MWC, for your responses. I will spare the burden of everyone digging through quotes and try to reply without them.

 

I do not recall saying what lies beyond the 2nd century, etc., is unknowable but if I did then I misspoke, of course. I also meant to say the New Testament books were not cannonized before the 3rd century. Of course the Hebrew books were around and Jesus is said to have read from them.

 

The cannonization of the Bible is not the question but the existence of the books themselves. Apologists, of course, attempt to verify or "prove" they existed but all of the scholarly material I've read indicates otherwise, that there were none written before the end of the first century BC and most showed up much later. There are rumored texts like the "Q" Gospel that is referenced but no longer exists from which the other gospels appear to have been written.

 

Personally I do not care very much if Paul actually wrote the letters attributed to him, in my view Paul was the first one to corrupt the message of Jesus and re-establish a form of law for Christians. That's my opinion, of course, not much backed up with sources. There are some who would agree with me. Paul repeatedly fell back on Jewish rules and moral standards. In one breath he spoke of freedom "in Christ," in another he spoke of being a "slave" of Christ and in another he blasted an assortment of individuals for sinning even after they've become Christians. Paul is the first and primary source of the contradictory standards I suffered under as a Christian, are we saved and forgiven or not? Either forgiveness is total and absolute or it is a lie.

 

What you are saying about "freedom" is that it is relative. We're more free than, say, North Koreans? I'm not sure how knowledge of something beyond ourselves provides personal freedom on this earth. How could believing in a heaven provide freedom for a slave? The slave remains the slave. And neither Paul nor Jesus suggested abolition of slavery. Did they?

 

I would have to go back and find the sources I used to effectively reply to the belief that the wise men were Buddhist monks. Of course with the net one can find an abundance of sources, it's just a question of authenticity. On quick search I found an interesting article asking, "Was Jesus Buddhist?" It can be found here: http://www.thezensite.com/non_Zen/Was_Jesus_Buddhist.html

 

Your animosity aside, I quoted the "stupid" verse merely so that I could respond to it. I didn't take anything out of context. The question was about that verse in particular, not the whole book. This was, after all, the original question of this thread: are there hints or suggestions in the book placed of left there by certain people to encourage readers to seek truth outside of what is written?

 

Your explanation of the book are interesting but I can't see how they are relevant to this question. I've read the book countless times and understand the points within it. I no longer care what Paul was trying to say because he was, to be blunt, full of shit. I was merely questioning if the "love" chapter fit the tone of the rest of the book. I can't see that it does.

 

There is no value in The Bible beyond the small bits that speak to us on a universal level. In many instances those small bits do not quite fit the theme of the book itself and are certainly the most ignored in Christendom. My question on this thread was an attempt to ask if "somebody was trying to tell us something" about the falsehood of contrived Christianity born in the 3rd century. It seems like a possibility.

 

MWC addresses the book and its message rather than answering the question, I think, except to say my idea is a wrong one because the "little bits" were not inserted or kept in after an editing but are part of the original texts, texts that originated earlier than the 3rd century.

 

I've droned on too long already with this post but let me finish by saying in my research for a book a few years ago I studied quite a bit about the origins of the bible and the creation of the church. I learned there were many sects with many differing beliefs for a couple hundred years. There was a dominant sect, however, that resembled modern Christianity in doctrine, a sect that ruthlessly and without justification went about destroying the others whom they believed to be heretics. Thus began the very un-Christian form of Christianity best called Pauline Christians. A dominant sect that fled to Egypt was the Gnostics, who eventually died out but who left a treasure of writings found in Egypt a bit over a century ago. Those texts, including the Gospel of Thomas especially, opened a light on the first centuries that had gone out.

 

The ruthless Pauline Christians established their headquarters in Rome, eventually won over the emperor Constantine, and created the Roman Catholic Church which ruled the west for a dozen centuries before it was ever questioned. By that time the only Christianity that survived in the west was Pauline Christianity. Orthodox Christianity just to the east is very similar but has some differences. Christians in the west, then, no matter if theye are protestant or catholic, Methodist or Pentecostal or whatever, follow Pauline Christianity with its rules, it's contradictions, and its contrived and manipulated Bible. Everything hinged on the establishment of a cannon and that was done under the supervision of the Roman Church. I get to my question in a rambling way, again. Were there descendants or believers or followers of those early sects, sects whose beliefs differed from Pauline teachings, involved in that cannon process? And if they were, did they insert thoughts, ideas, and views of their own sect (such as Gnostic beliefs) into the cannon? It's known that the Gospel of John very nearly did not make it because it hints on Gnosticism. Other possible texts were rejected for the same reason.

 

If those folks existed, if they inserted the words that encouraged readers to question and seek answers themselves, then I owe them a big debt of gratitude. If not then all I can say is the book that was supposed to convince me it was truth eventually and ironically convinced me the whole of it was a lie.

[mwc]

Personally I do not care very much if Paul actually wrote the letters attributed to him, in my view Paul was the first one to corrupt the message of Jesus and re-establish a form of law for Christians. That's my opinion, of course, not much backed up with sources. There are some who would agree with me. Paul repeatedly fell back on Jewish rules and moral standards. In one breath he spoke of freedom "in Christ," in another he spoke of being a "slave" of Christ and in another he blasted an assortment of individuals for sinning even after they've become Christians. Paul is the first and primary source of the contradictory standards I suffered under as a Christian, are we saved and forgiven or not? Either forgiveness is total and absolute or it is a lie.

Paul was supposedly a Jew. What standards was he supposed to use?

 

He speaks of being a "slave" to sin and various things of that nature as well. He wants people to choose a "master." There is no getting around having one. You either are a "slave" to his "god" and his "christ" or you are a slave to these other things (ie. "sin"). But, his "master" offers "freedom" while the other offers destruction. Once the judgment comes then the hope is to be chosen, like slaves of the day were, and essentially made freedmen. According to the laws enacted by Augustus only ~100 slaves could make the cut (I don't know if this would have changed by Paul's time) so being a "good" slave, a chosen one, when the time came would ultimately culminate in freedom for a select group. Slavery and obedience now but freedom later (as free as a freedman could be at that time). It's perfectly logical within the framework of the culture. It's unthinkable today. Submit to be free? That's silly.

 

What you are saying about "freedom" is that it is relative. We're more free than, say, North Koreans? I'm not sure how knowledge of something beyond ourselves provides personal freedom on this earth. How could believing in a heaven provide freedom for a slave? The slave remains the slave. And neither Paul nor Jesus suggested abolition of slavery. Did they?

 

Galatians 4

 

1 But I say that as long as the son is a child, he is in no way different from a servant, though he is lord of all; 2 But is under keepers and managers till the time fixed by the father. 3 So we, when we were young, were kept under the first rules of the world; 4 But when the time had come, God sent out his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 That he might make them free who were under the law, and that we might be given the place of sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has sent out the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, saying, Abba, Father. 7 So that you are no longer a servant, but a son; and if a son, then the heritage of God is yours. 8 But at that time, having no knowledge of God, you were servants to those who by right are no gods: 9 But now that you have come to have knowledge of God, or more truly, God has knowledge of you, how is it that you go back again to the poor and feeble first things, desiring to be servants to them again?

He gives his basic progression of being born, following the Jewish law, and ultimately being adopted as a son so you could receive an inheritance. Essentially, at v7, the "servants" all get an upgrade in status so they can gain a legal inheritance which is how it worked. What Paul says fits nicely with their society. Not so much with our own.

 

I would have to go back and find the sources I used to effectively reply to the belief that the wise men were Buddhist monks. Of course with the net one can find an abundance of sources, it's just a question of authenticity. On quick search I found an interesting article asking, "Was Jesus Buddhist?" It can be found here: http://www.thezensite.com/non_Zen/Was_Jesus_Buddhist.html

I've been down this path before.

 

Your animosity aside, I quoted the "stupid" verse merely so that I could respond to it. I didn't take anything out of context. The question was about that verse in particular, not the whole book. This was, after all, the original question of this thread: are there hints or suggestions in the book placed of left there by certain people to encourage readers to seek truth outside of what is written?

No animosity. It was a joke.

 

Your explanation of the book are interesting but I can't see how they are relevant to this question. I've read the book countless times and understand the points within it. I no longer care what Paul was trying to say because he was, to be blunt, full of shit. I was merely questioning if the "love" chapter fit the tone of the rest of the book. I can't see that it does.

I don't recall saying Paul wasn't full of shit. I'm pretty sure I've said a lot worse about old Paul over the years.

 

I think that it does fit. Paul is a con artist. So he needs to get these people back on his side and he's doing it long distance. So he falls back to the getting more flies with honey line. All you need is love. All the other problems would be solved if they just had love. Then, of course, he tells them what to do (not letting them really solve it for themselves). So if things fail he can point back at them for not being loving and grown up. It's a nice move on his part. If it wasn't there they'd be able to say "We did what you told us but it didn't work" and it would fall on Paul's shoulders. He shifts the burden with that one chapter.

 

MWC addresses the book and its message rather than answering the question, I think, except to say my idea is a wrong one because the "little bits" were not inserted or kept in after an editing but are part of the original texts, texts that originated earlier than the 3rd century.

I addressed the quote. I addressed it in context. But you want me to play "The Da Vinci Code?" Really? All because addressing the quote within an earlier context doesn't suit a later 3rd century conspiracy theory I'm the bad guy here? Okay.

 

mwc

[TedGresham]

I addressed the quote. I addressed it in context. But you want me to play "The Da Vinci Code?" Really? All because addressing the quote within an earlier context doesn't suit a later 3rd century conspiracy theory I'm the bad guy here? Okay.

 

No bad guys, MWC. Sorry it took so long for me to get back, got tied up and didn't get back to the form.

 

I think I got caught up in words and bullshit, eh? (I'm practicing my Canadian accent!) Like I said before, I dunno anything, I was just curious. We tend to get wound up sometimes and there is a tendency too to be a little defensive, maybe, I dunno, on the forums around this internet. Anyway, I'm a little brain buzzed today so I don't think I could respond to your responses of my responses to your responses, etc. with any semblance of coherence so I'll spare yall.

 

I would hope that there were a few with some sense about them back in the first few centuries but at the same time if there were I wish they'd have had the guts to speak up and not let shit happen as it did. Eh?

[mwc]

I think I got caught up in words and bullshit, eh? (I'm practicing my Canadian accent!) Like I said before, I dunno anything, I was just curious. We tend to get wound up sometimes and there is a tendency too to be a little defensive, maybe, I dunno, on the forums around this internet. Anyway, I'm a little brain buzzed today so I don't think I could respond to your responses of my responses to your responses, etc. with any semblance of coherence so I'll spare yall.

 

I would hope that there were a few with some sense about them back in the first few centuries but at the same time if there were I wish they'd have had the guts to speak up and not let shit happen as it did. Eh?

That's alright. I don't tend to worry about it.

 

I saw where you said your expertise lies more with WWII and the like. I'm more ignorant there but as I recall this was a situation where there was a fair bit of secret codes and things of that nature. If this is along the lines of what you were thinking I don't see anything wrong with expecting people from 2000 years ago to behave in a similar fashion. I just disagree that this was the case here or that there would be a reason for copyists to think that the movement would have a lifetime great enough to need to embed a coded subversive type message.

 

We know that a lot of people spoke up against xianity. They lost out. Most everything they said was destroyed (now we're talking the right time periods). I know most people blame Constantine but he just made the religion legal (which seemed like more a political move than personal). It wasn't until Jovian(?), that restored xianity after Julian the Apostate, and his sons (especially the one that really endorsed the Nicene Creed) that xianity as we know it finally came down with an iron fist and crushed paganism and other forms of xianity like Arianism. Between Constantine and this time, from what I recall, the emperors were basically their own flavors of xianity and never really bothered to push to hard for any one thing which tells me they may have believed something personally but tried to be very inclusive politically. Then came a sort of "grand unification" under a single religion in hopes to keep the empire together (I'm not extremely familiar with this period so I'd have to check on all this...late 4th/early 5th centuries).

 

mwc