Love vs Tyranny

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

Right. "Don't obey Yahweh, he kills you.

Obey Yahweh and he still kills you!"

dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com...

What is the reasoning behind the "you must never speak its name Yahweh EVER" in the Hebraic tradition (outloud). What kind of fear factor does that entail? Powerfull stuff that makes no sense at all; no sing my praises to the kingdom as you my witnesses or sing my SONG of good will intentions? To obey him is a conceit, to defy him is to be locked up in a room with him with nothing but dead air space between you "Nope dont see you will not dare call you by name".

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Because if that's how you describe your deity, then my thread is wholly intended for you, among others. Be ready to defend your beliefs, because if you don't, then I will walk away either right or unamended.

You either didn't read the post I linked to, or you ignored the end of it. Let me repost it for you:

Faith is a personal matter between me and God. It isn't a book, it isn't a theology, it isn't a ceremony -- those things help facilitate that relationship that I have with God, but if those are the things that become more important than that relationship, then you're on the wrong track.

I have already indicated that your claim that God is a repressive government is irrational, so if all you have left is quotes from the Hebrew Bible that you think imply that God is a tyrant, save it -- as I noted above, I am not a Fundamentalist, and I do not care what your opinion of that book is.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Let's take a look at the first sentence of the link you posted.

The scripture is God's Word.

Right off the bat they have a subjective view on the origin of the bible, they have made their conclusion before they start. This is clearly a biased source, you may want to use a source who is not biased, like Wikipedia

You may want to look into that link. Here's a piece of it:

Catholic interpretation - Because the Catholic Church is, according to Catholics, the official custodian and interpreter of the Bible, Catholicism's teaching concerning the Sacred Scriptures and their genuine sense must be the supreme guide of the commentator. The Catholic commentator is bound to adhere to the interpretation of texts which the Church has defined either expressly or implicitly.

The Catholic Church was the first church, which means they are to blame for every other denomination that has sprung up since. They were the originators of the core doctrine that all the other denominations follow, that of Paul's message of faith in Jesus dying on the cross then resurrecting, THE most fundamental part of Christianity.

Even you follow that one guideline to a tee, never deviating from it. Whatever doesn't support your emotional connection to Jesus' death, you throw out as nonsense and/or Satanic. That is not an objective mind, which means you could have never implemented exegesis in your interpretation, you just parrot what Paul said.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by windword

 

A community of 4,000 over a centuries long timespan is significant and needs to be referenced in every book written in its time? There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that Jesus is an Essene, which you take to be some sort of conspiracy, when the more obvious explanation is that he wasn't an Essene. He didn't act like one, he didn't live like one, so it isn't likely that he was one. The Essenes of the time never claimed Jesus or John the Baptist, it's all people making suppositions after the fact.

If you're just going to create a fictional account of Christ, then why do you even bother arguing any point from the New Testament? Just make up your own, claim that it's the real thing, and be done with it.

Did she just forget that her own source, which she affirmed was "authoritative" stated there is no proof "at all" that either JTB or Jesus were Essene?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by windword

 

A community of 4,000 over a centuries long timespan is significant and needs to be referenced in every book written in its time? There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that Jesus is an Essene, which you take to be some sort of conspiracy, when the more obvious explanation is that he wasn't an Essene. He didn't act like one, he didn't live like one, so it isn't likely that he was one. The Essenes of the time never claimed Jesus or John the Baptist, it's all people making suppositions after the fact.

If you're just going to create a fictional account of Christ, then why do you even bother arguing any point from the New Testament? Just make up your own, claim that it's the real thing, and be done with it.

Did she just forget that her own source, which she affirmed was "authoritative" stated there is no proof "at all" that either JTB or Jesus were Essene?

Probably so... I was looking for any shred of evidence that the Catholic Church had "suppressed" the Essenes, and I reread that page, nothing there. Nothing anywhere else, either, apart from modern day "Essene" claimants, who don't cite sources and obviously are biased.

The best I've been able to find is rumours that the Romans killed them in their general sweep of the Holy Land, or Qumran was destroyed in an earthquake. Seems like the more likely cause is that an unpopular ascetic community of males who all declare celibacy is going to eventually die out through attrition.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Rejecting the claims of any source based on the argument that the source has a bias is a fallacy. It's called a "circumstantial ad hominem" fallacy. Im pretty certain I've pointed this out before.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


AGAIN! That source was from PBS, that was a archaeological report on the Essenes. The reports indicates that there is a widely held belief among many scholars that Jesus and/or John the Baptist were Essenes.

The purpose of that providing that source had nothing to do with the Biblical evidence, which is not scientific, that they were indeed, at the very least, accepted and initiated by the Essenes, if not direct members of the sect.

This thread is NOT about whether or not Jesus or John the Baptist were Essenes, it is about tyranny. The tyrannical, "love me or be killed", philosophy of the Old Testament god is echoed in the mainstream Christian church through it's continual denial of the Essene message throughout Bible and their attempt to erase and/or discredit them and their message completely. That is tyranny!

Too bad it backfired on the Catholic Church, and the Essene texts were discovered in 1947. Too late for the Catholic Church to shove under the rug, or kill their discoverers.

Not seeing and the refusal to acknowledge the Essene influence in the teachings of Jesus and John the Baptist and their subtle presence in the scripture is just ignorance and denial.

The reason I mentioned the Essenes in this thread is because they were a sect of Judaism that rejected the tyrannical qualities and demands of the god of the Old Testament.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by windword
Why aren't the Essenes mentioned in the Bible?

Because they were a minority sect who lived out in the desert and had absolutely nothing to do with the story? The Sadducees were substantially large and far more important, and they merited, what, one representation? If someone really had an agenda, the Essenes would make an appearance in the text, painted in a negative light.

There isn't a conspiracy hiding in every corner... some things are ignored simply because they are irrelevant.

This is not irrelevant. They were the minority because they held truths that exist to this day based in numbers and the (pick your own spelling) Qabalah; hidden truths and so were persecuted (they were not wealthy, collaborating with the Romans, or of the rigid Hebraic Oral tradition) . Qumran was their onclave. It was not a community as you would know it, more of a monastary setting; 70 people at one time men, women and children were there to recieve identical teachings. It was in no means patriarchial. Jesus traveled there to study after the age of thirteen. One of the reasons was because he was being looked for, his family left Egypt for the same reason, it was known he satisfied the prophecy. Qumran was hidden, not so much from the Romans (TAXES TAXES) but also from the Pharacee and Sadducee. I would imagine this early environment led him to include the Magdalene as his first and foremost Apostle. That inclusion would round out the number to 13 not 12. Just as there are 12 Universes the ulitmate Creator rounds it to 13 (a devine number). The Essenes knew their creator was not YHWH, but another much higher being. They alone tried to bring their realm into the 20th century with the hiding and finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls; still no one understands the intent, they could just as the Tibetans see into their future.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

Rejecting the claims of any source based on the argument that the source has a bias is a fallacy. It's called a "circumstantial ad hominem" fallacy. Im pretty certain I've pointed this out before.

And, you have depended on the exact same argument when someone presents scholarship of something you disagree with. You claim the source is bias, therefore, you reject it.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

AGAIN! That source was from PBS, that was a archaeological report on the Essenes. The reports indicates that is a widely held belief among many scholars that Jesus and/or John the Baptist were Essenes.

No, it is not a widely held belief. The best that I've seen is that it's a minority view, and it mostly revolves around similar perspectives on some issues, not membership. The fact that the Essenes were fanatical about the Sabbath Law and Jesus refuted it is sufficient evidence that he was not an Essene.

the mainstream Christian church through it's continual denial of the Essene message throughout Bible and their attempt to erase and/or discredit them and their message completely. That is tyranny!

Too bad it backfired on the Catholic Church, and the Essene texts were discovered in 1947. Too late for the Catholic Church to shove under the rug, or kill their discoverers.

As noted earlier, I have been unable to find any non-"Essene" sources for such a claim. You are welcome to produce such.

The 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia has an extensive article on the Essenes, including a description of their communities, behaviours and beliefs that doesn't seem out of accord with what I've seen you claim, so it makes zero sense that the Catholic Church would want to suppress the Dead Sea Scrolls. They might have little good to say about modern day pretenders to the Essene name who try to hijack the name of Jesus to their cause, but it's a little hard to blame them for that.

reply to post by vethumanbeing


There is absolutely no evidence, in either the New Testament or the Dead Sea Scrolls for anything that you've claimed, apart from the vague generalities.

Like the "Christian Gnostics" of the 19th and 20th Centuries, there is no connection between modern day "Essenes" and the 1st Century group, apart from the name, chosen to confuse weak minded types, no doubt. Unsourced claims as to the actions of Christ, John the Baptist or any other historical figure by these modern day groups are of no value.

reply to post by adjensen



Ignorance of evidence doesn't equal lack of evidence.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by adjensen

 

Ignorance of evidence doesn't equal lack of evidence.

Well, then present it. Actual historical evidence, not unsubstantiated claims and supposition. One cannot be ignorant of evidence that doesn't exist.

I have given you a number of clear examples that demonstrate it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, for Christ to be an Essene, and all you've done in return is stomp your foot and criticize me for saying that it isn't so.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by adjensen

 

It's one thing to not know or understand something and ask questions, quite another to be ignorant and attempt to demonstrate how those who are not ignorant are wrong, simply because their beliefs, grounded in knowledge of the matter at hand, differ from yours, grounded in ignorance of the matter at hand.

So what are your beliefs? You say you're not a fundamentalist, so enlighten us as to where you stand on the playing field. What perspective or ideals are you speaking from?

edit on 3-3-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

It is wrong not to be ignorant or at least grounded in it. It is much better to be demonstratively ignorant with hind and foresight. The matter at hand is a switcheroo, as knowledge grounded in ignorance is much better than no knowledge at all for at least it drives the debate. A belief SYSTEM implies it is an idea form based upon others, not your own, you are only complicit of having the same ideology recognition (lemmings dive off cliffs once a year). If you knew/know something to be true, you would NEVER call it a 'belief system".

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

There is absolutely no evidence, in either the New Testament or the Dead Sea Scrolls for anything that you've claimed, apart from the vague generalities.

Like the "Christian Gnostics" of the 19th and 20th Centuries, there is no connection between modern name "Essenes" and the 1st Century group, apart from the name, chosen to confuse weak minded types, no doubt. Unsourced claims as to the actions of Christ, John the Baptist or any other historical figure by these modern day groups are of no value.

Why would I need evidence. No generalities from this quarter. MODERN name is the Essene? The 1st century name not valid, that is the name. You would say this is a made up sect to thoroughly confuse 21 centurians. These claims are not unsourced. Jesus left Qumran to travel the world with Joseph of Aramethiea, disapeared from view for nigh on 20 years. Who is the one confused here? Why would you think the New Testament is telling you a falsehood; in not explaining the 40 days between Jesus's resurrection and ascendition or those count them, the 20 odd years he was on a road trip (Chicago, Detroit, Detroit, Chicago over and over again).

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Here's another piece from your link:

Because we are sinners, we are incapable of interpreting God's word perfectly all of the time. The body, mind, will, and emotions are affected by sin and make 100% interpretive accuracy impossible. This does not mean that accurate understanding of God's Word is impossible. But it does mean that we need to approach His word with care, humility, and reason. Additionally, we need, as best as can be had, the guidance of the Holy Spirit in interpreting God's Word. After all, the Bible is inspired by God and is addressed to His people. The Holy Spirit helps us to understand what God's word means and how to apply it.

They are biased, and their list of ways to interpret the bible is not the only one. The link I provided has a completely different list than theirs. Provide the same list from an unbiased source and maybe we can talk about it.

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
Why would you think the New Testament is telling you a falsehood; in not explaining the 40 days between Jesus's resurrection and ascendition or those count them, the 20 odd years he was on a road trip (Chicago, Detroit, Detroit, Chicago over and over again).

Was he opening for Motörhead on that tour?

reply to post by windword

The reports indicates that there is a widely held belief among many scholars that Jesus and/or John the Baptist were Essenes.

You should re-read that report. It clearly states that there is no proof of that "at all", (direct quote). So you have a claim of some scholars which are not historians or archaeologists. Scholars expertise is limited to the Biblical text.

So that's just their arbitrary assumption based on their presuppositions, not any evidence "at all".

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by vethumanbeing
Why would you think the New Testament is telling you a falsehood; in not explaining the 40 days between Jesus's resurrection and ascendition or those count them, the 20 odd years he was on a road trip (Chicago, Detroit, Detroit, Chicago over and over again).

Was he opening for Motörhead on that tour?

Wasn't it Limp Bizkit?