Which prophet was correct?

[xxlt]

(09-21-2015, 05:01 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Actually, there is A LOT to suggest that big portions of the Bible are historical. There are doubts to the veracity of said history, sure, but they're still historical.

Well, there are big portions of lots of books that are historical. Big parts of lots of TV shows too. MASH is set in the Korean war and Batman (the original TV show) is set in the 1960's. Despite the big historical portions of both shows (a real war, 1960's fashion) I would not call either a history show or a "historical" show.

I also wouldn't call David Copperfield or any other Dickens novel a history book, even though, again, big portions are historical and Dickens stories are set in a real historical period. The point is history books are written in a certain style and with a certain purpose, neither which is evident in the Bible.

[xxlt]

(09-21-2015, 05:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Absolutely there are. Honestly, Buddha and Jesus share many similarities in their teachings when you account for the eastern/western philosophy divide. I deleted your part about Buddha being a prophet, but I agree to an extent. That being said, I would say all three of those were spiritual reformers (because honestly, how could you say God is a prophet for himself).

It has been a long time since I studied all this but the Jesus narrative in the Bible has about 20 years missing. He goes from about 13 to about 33 in a paragraph or so in each of the NT gospels where you can chart it. Some say this missing period is when he, "went into the desert to pray." One school of thought says he went to India and studied there, which would explain the Buddhist influence in his thought. Of course, for many Christians this is heresy. For them Jesus is like Chuck Norris: he wouldn't study Buddhism, he would punch it in the testicles.

[xxlt]

(09-21-2015, 07:24 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: This thread reminds me of the time that I did DMT in the Great Basin and listed to some random hippie chick talk about the meaning of life.

Did you really do DMT? If so, please create a thread and describe your experience.

[Blutarsky]

(09-21-2015, 09:59 AM)xxlt Wrote: Pete Seeger was a prophet. Dr. King was a prophet. Tom Doyle is a prophet. They are simply truth tellers but ones who take risks by speaking the truths others dare not. A prophet is, as Jeremiah described himself, "a voice crying out in the wilderness." Prophets rock.

No Obama?

Oh wait, he's the Messiah. That's different.

[Beaker]

I believe all prophets spend their time on Earth for a reason....as messengers. The similarities of each are not a coincidence. They bring a message as to the truth in life. Within that commonality is the secret. The fact that separate religions follow separate parts of those messages tells me that all religions hold part of the truth, but no single religion IS the truth. Religions when taken separately mislead us. Religions when viewed as a whole are closer to the truth. We should observe the common message....that we are all part of the same whole, and hurting each other is only hurting ourselves.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-27-2015, 08:18 AM)xxlt Wrote: The point is history books are written in a certain style and with a certain purpose, neither which is evident in the Bible.

The parts of the Bible that are meant to be history, they most certainly are.

You are honestly the first person I've met that's tried to claim they're not historical. I've seen many claim theyre fictional and things of that nature, but never that they're not historical.

[Blutarsky]

(09-27-2015, 10:26 AM)PhilHos Wrote: I've seen many claim theyre fictional and things of that nature, but never that they're not historical.

Historical fiction? That sounds exactly like what your saying lol.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-27-2015, 10:33 AM)Blutarsky Wrote: Historical fiction? That sounds exactly like what your saying lol.

:snark:

[Blutarsky]

(09-27-2015, 10:37 AM)PhilHos Wrote: :snark:

Make your little  face but that is exactly what you are saying.

[Belsnickel]

(09-27-2015, 08:25 AM)xxlt Wrote: It has been a long time since I studied all this but the Jesus narrative in the Bible has about 20 years missing. He goes from about 13 to about 33 in a paragraph or so in each of the NT gospels where you can chart it. Some say this missing period is when he, "went into the desert to pray." One school of thought says he went to India and studied there, which would explain the Buddhist influence in his thought. Of course, for many Christians this is heresy. For them Jesus is like Chuck Norris: he wouldn't study Buddhism, he would punch it in the testicles.

I am familiar with that theory, and also one that there was evidence of Buddhism's reach in Galilee at the time of Jesus so that he wouldn't have even had to go to India. But regardless, Buddha did for Hinduism what Jesus did for Judaism, so to ignore the similarity there is difficult.

[Arturo Bandini]

This is always the same story dressed with cultural differences.

[xxlt]

(09-27-2015, 09:23 AM)Blutarsky Wrote: No Obama?

Oh wait, he's the Messiah. That's different.

Once again, you show how clueless you are. I hate Obama like Jesus hates sin. But keep swinging, or should I say keep trolling? Now more than ever I am convinced you are the alter ego of someone with way too much time on his/her hands. A rock isn't as dumb as you pretend to be.

[xxlt]

(09-27-2015, 11:29 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am familiar with that theory, and also one that there was evidence of Buddhism's reach in Galilee at the time of Jesus so that he wouldn't have even had to go to India. But regardless, Buddha did for Hinduism what Jesus did for Judaism, so to ignore the similarity there is difficult.

Unless you are a Christian, lol.

[xxlt]

(09-27-2015, 10:26 AM)PhilHos Wrote: The parts of the Bible that are meant to be history, they most certainly are.

You are honestly the first person I've met that's tried to claim they're not historical. I've seen many claim theyre fictional and things of that nature, but never that they're not historical.

"Big portions" morphs into "parts." I am sorry that I know more about the bible than Mr. Diehard Christian, or anyone he knows, but that is the inconvenient truth. Sorry, I love a good Frank Gore reference when I can slide one in.

Just for giggles take a look at this: http://www.christianbook.com/new-jerome-biblical-commentary-third-edition/9780138598365/pd/98365?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=academic&utm_term=jerome%20bible%20commentary&event=PPCSRC&p=1020037
 
or this: http://www.amazon.com/Literary-Guide-Bible-Robert-Alter/dp/0674875311

If you do it will be fun for me to know I had a hand in melting that last little bit of your cerebellum.

PS, kiss Jesus goodnight for me.

[Belsnickel]

(09-27-2015, 08:30 PM)xxlt Wrote: Unless you are a Christian, lol.

Well, I am saying that as someone that identifies as Christian.

[Blutarsky]

(09-27-2015, 09:29 AM)Beaker Wrote: I believe all prophets spend their time on Earth for a reason....as messengers. The similarities of each are not a coincidence. They bring a message as to the truth in life. Within that commonality is the secret. The fact that separate religions follow separate parts of those messages tells me that all religions hold part of the truth, but no single religion IS the truth. Religions when taken separately mislead us. Religions when viewed as a whole are closer to the truth. We should observe the common message....that we are all part of the same whole, and hurting each other is only hurting ourselves.

I can almost agree..if only the aim of one of these religions wasn't to eradicate the other 3.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-28-2015, 08:46 PM)Blutarsky Wrote: I can almost agree..if only the aim of one of these religions wasn't to eradicate the other 3.

The other 3?

[Blutarsky]

(09-28-2015, 09:52 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The other 3?

Mathematically challenged are we?

Christianity + Judaism + Buddhism = 3 

[Benton]

(09-28-2015, 08:46 PM)Blutarsky Wrote: I can almost agree..if only the aim of one of these religions wasn't to eradicate the other 3.

Hmm. You realize two of those three had tried to eradicate other religions and practitioners? Even at this point there's the nature of intolerance with all major religions.

People abusing religion has been around as long as there's been people.

[Bengalzona]

(09-20-2015, 05:40 PM)Beaker Wrote: Jesus?

Muhammed?

Buddha?

any of the others?

All religions insist their prophet was correct, and that you must follow their teachings or risk eternal damnation. What makes one right and the other wrong? Who shuld someone looking for eternal salvation believe? If you make the wrong choice....

How do you know?

I tend to think they are all right. Atheists too.

I'm Christian because I was brought up with it, because I choose to be and because it works for me. If I was brought up in Saudi Arabia, it is a pretty good bet I'd be Muslim. Or Hindu if I was born in India.

I don't see any reason why an all powerful being would expect me to go out like a third-rate used car salesman and recruit for Him. Besides, I don't really care what someone else chooses to believe as long as it isn't forced down my throat. That is the one sure way to ensure that someone will NEVER accept your religion IMO.

Anymore, I've become a Christian who likes to sit around with his atheist buddies and bad-mouth other Christians for the stupid-ass stuff they say.