topic Re: It's been a while :-) in The Round Table

It's been a while :-)

**bustysinclaire** — Sun, 21 Jan 2018 21:41:08 GMT

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-no1-2018-jan-feb/bible-guidance-relevant/

A topic that is being offered for discussion this month. Some may find it interesting xxx

Re: It's been a while :-)

cee-dee — Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:26:16 GMT

As none of the many viewers has bothered to reply, I'll do so, perhaps start the ball rolling?

To start with, I have read all the pages in your link.

Now the first question comes from the title, the question being "Which Bible"? The Bible has changed down the ages.

Some of the historical "facts" are wrong, the dates ascribed to some writings are way out. The way the writer of your link puts things over seems to imply that Genesis was written first. It wasn't.

Over the millenia, the majority of people were illiterate and it's said that the many and varied "teachings" were memorised. That reminds me of the old illustration of repetition distortion. "Send reinforcements, we're going to attack, pass it on" being corrupted to "Send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance". OK, daft saying but relevant and illustrative of what I mean.

Now, is the guidance relevant today? Well, yes, a lot of it is if you ignore the blind faith. You can be a good and decent person if you "do unto others....."

Compare if you will the Sermon on the Mount to the Sermon on the Plain and the many variations? There are many and varied iterpretations so "which" one do you "accept"

It all sorts of leads on to theories and theorems. A theory has yet to be proven and in a way is just a belief. A theorem can be proven like (the best known?) that of Pythogorus. Just try to make a right angled triangle that disproves that "The square on the hypotenuse is equal the the sum of the squares on the other two sides"?

You can theorise this that or the other about the Universe but only some things can be proven as fact. We "believe"....... proving it is harder.

Where does "belief" become "faith" and where does such faith become "blind faith"?

Where does the belief that blanking a person who decides "the cult" is no longer for them or questions "the cult" is socially acceptable taking all that has been written down the ages and really, is "the cult" itself socially acceptable all things considered and especially so regarding all that has been written? If you accept all that has been written, just where does such blanking occur in those writings without taking a couple of "references" to extremes, completely out of context or adding to them?

Re: It's been a while :-)

astrologica — Mon, 22 Jan 2018 17:00:18 GMT

Hello Busty!🙂 I don't think you'll get much in the way of debate on this subject on here...we have done religion to death in the past!

But...in answer to your question, My own view is that there are aspects of the bible that are always relevant. Not the bits that refer to events of the past, but the bits that tell us how to live our lives in a good way, and how to be kind and care for others that we meet along the path of our lives. I haven't read the tracts that you linked to...as it is just another person's take on the Bible. There are parts of the Bible that are dry and dusty and unbelievable, but there are also parts that are breathtakingly beautiful, and some people who are not necessarily believers still enjoy reading them, so in that sense they are still relevant.

I'm afraid I don't have that 'blind' faith that you have, admirable though it is. It seems to me that the number of atheists is growing, mainly because of the failure of the established church to engage with people. They fail to tell people that one can follow Christian values and be good people without actually being a 'Christian'. I don't attend Church, but in the face of the religion of Islam becoming the dominant religion in this country, I would actually stand up for Christian values, and return to Church, although some might find that hypocritical. Can one be Christian without a belief in God? Now there's a question!

Re: It's been a while :-)

cee-dee — Mon, 22 Jan 2018 19:12:12 GMT

You can certainly follow Christian values and not "believe". The thing is, Jesus wasn't a "Christian", he lived and died a Jew!

What makes for religious disent is that all of them seem to revolve around religious "Laws" and "compulsions" under threat of dire consequences if "The Law" is not followed (religiously?).

Re: It's been a while :-)

astrologica — Mon, 22 Jan 2018 22:45:15 GMT

Of course Jesus was a Christian! He may have been a Jew, but being Jesus Christ himself, then he was the very first Christian.You are correct when you say that one can follow Christian values and not 'believe', but would the established church welcome people who would like to follow those teachings, but who cannot have a belief in any God. I have often wondered how many people who belong to the established Church actually do believe in God, and the concept of Heaven and an afterlife. I also wonder what would happen if we had an heir to the throne who was an atheist? Could such an heir be 'Defender of the Faith while actually not be a believer in the Faith?

I don't think Busty had this kind of debate in mind when she posed the question, but there you go...religion is a mine field!

Re: It's been a while :-)

cee-dee — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:08:33 GMT

Jesus was born, lived and was a Jew at his death. It was his followers who began what was to become Christianity.

Re: It's been a while :-)

margaret*e — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:16:39 GMT

The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19].

Re: It's been a while :-)

cee-dee — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:45:26 GMT

I think many people are not well read and take many things out of contect.

The gospels are conflicting and contradictory at times.

John the Baptist was a Jew and he baptised Jesus. Some of the followers of J the B later followed Jesus and the sayings of JC were not written down until long after his death. How historically correct are all the writings is open to conjecture leading people to believe what part(s) they choose to believe. Other people choose to believe different parts.

Re: It's been a while :-)

bankhaunter — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:33:49 GMT

The Bible is an interesting piece of literature but as a divinely inspired collection of writings, it does fall rather short.

Firstly it was compiled by a group of church leaders using the writings which they considered most represented their point of view and secondly, it is open to many interpretations which would seem quite contrary to divine inspiration.

One would have expected a god to have made his word clear for all to understand without any contradictions, his meaning being abundantly plain.

Re: It's been a while :-)

cee-dee — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 19:12:03 GMT

Another "difficulty" was that the original "sayings" were in Aramaic or Hebrew and translations in to Greek & etc were a bit conmplicated by the same or similar words having different meanings. Mix in various dialects and you've got added complications in translation.

Some of the Old Testament are/were corruptions of the Tanakh and Torah so how much was picked/chosen/discarded is anyone's guess.

Re: It's been a while :-)

theelench — Wed, 24 Jan 2018 08:35:20 GMT

Although whatever Jesus said in his sermons was most likely in Aramaic it would have been written in Greek by people fluent in both. Greek had been the "international" language for several centuries, since Alexander conquered the area and was used by anyone considered "educated" for business, legal or literary texts. Even personal correspondence would have been written in Greek precisely to avoid imprecise translation. The xenophobic Romans learned Greek as part of their education not just because of their cultural heritage but for the practical reason that it was the language of administration in "The East" -- the most important part of their empire.

If things were altered in translation it's more likely to have happened centuries later when copyists who were not fluent in Greek tried to translate the Greek texts into Latin.

The Greek of the time was perfectly capable of transmitting the subtleties of theology. The original schism in the early church concerning the exact natures of God the father, God the son and the relationship between them were debated at the conclaves of Nicea and Chalcedon in Greek, presided over by Roman Emperors who took part in the debates.

What went into the New Testament, or was left out, was quite possibly political or just what suited whoever was compiling the book at the time but the original Greek texts were probably a reasonably accurate record of what was actually said.

Re: It's been a while :-)

right-then-petal — Wed, 24 Jan 2018 09:19:59 GMT

Sorted

Re: It's been a while :-)

bankhaunter — Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:02:14 GMT

As a general point, human morality does not depend on religion, it is completely independent of religion.

Religion does however, depend on human morality.

The Bible actually teaches nothing that isn't already inherent, the idea that somehow religious belief, particularly Christianity, is needed to be moral is a falsehood pushed by those who wish to assert authority and control.

Also Christianity with the New Testament cannot be separated from the Old Testament which can hardly be said to show great moral examples with its stories of authorised slaughter, revenge on the innocent, slavery etc.

Re: It's been a while :-)

cee-dee — Wed, 24 Jan 2018 12:11:16 GMT

Look at it logically? Really, Jesus was talking to the people on many occasions but was anyone there taking notes in Greek? Why would they do that? Let's face it, they wouldn't.

At the time (very early CE) there were many who were coming out with all sorts of stuff and Jesus was just one of them so why take notes at the time?

Being generous with logic, even if the accounts were written during the first century CE, they were still written "from memory". As with everything, say something often enough and people accept it, right or wrong.

As with UFO's and crop circles, people believe what they want to believe..........

Re: It's been a while :-)

bankhaunter — Wed, 24 Jan 2018 18:59:22 GMT

There is also a matter of who could say what went on when Jesus was supposed to have been alone.

Re: It's been a while :-)

theelench — Thu, 25 Jan 2018 09:01:46 GMT

I agree, we should look at it logically and part of the logic is the historic context. I've followed some of the similar discussions and both sides have seemed to miss out the context and only looked at the subject through 21st century eyes.

I think that there are two points where a lack of context has led you to false assumptions.

You said that as the original "sayings" were in Aramaic there would be problems of translation into Greek. I doubt this because at the time the society was effectively bi-lingual. Greek was the "official" language of business, law etc. Education would have included learning Greek as a necessity for "getting on" in the world. Both Jesus and most of his audience would have had at least a working knowledge of Greek and he could have peppered his sermons with Greek words to explain exactly what he meant. Most of his audience wouldn't have found this sort of borrowing at all unusual.

You ask " Was anyone taking notes in Greek? Why would they do that? Let's face it, they wouldn't." Again I agree with you, they wouldn't. But because they didn't need to. Although they were bi-lingual and semi, if not fully literate they relied on the written word far less than we do. Writing was far more difficult in their time than ours and they relied on their memories far more. To assume that their memory was likely to be as faulty as ours often is looking through our eyes, not theirs. They didn't rely nearly as much on the crutch of notes for accurate recall. I would say that with their better trained memories they would be able to pass on what was said quiet accurately, especially if it was important to them and at the time the question of the Messiah was important.

As you say "At the time (very early CE) there were many....... Jesus was just one of them, so why take notes.....". That's very important context. From Egypt to Antioch the whole area was anticipating the arrival of a Messiah. Augustus had been hailed as "sebastios", the saviour by the Greeks in the area. Antony and Cleopatra had named their children Helios and Selene to try to get on the band-wagon and there were numerous other contenders. We can't make any sense of the rise of Christianity, or its relevance today, by looking at it in isolation only within the context of its time.

Re: It's been a while :-)

cee-dee — Thu, 25 Jan 2018 10:54:24 GMT

Jesus lived and died a Jew so as well as Aeamaic he's have spoken Hebrew too. Whether he'd be fluent in Greek is less likely although he might have had some knowledge of it.

When he'd be addressing his "audience", who do you think he was mostly speaking to? They'd be mostly Aramaic/Hebrew speakers therefore he'd have been speaking to them in a language in which he and they were fluent.

Yes, Greek was "common" within the Roman Empire as such but.... the language of the (mostly illiterate) people was Aramaic.

Is it likely that Jesus mostly addressed Greek-fluent literate scholars? = No.

It's asking a lot to expect illiterate people of that time to have perfect recall of what was said to them unless it was just oft-said "prayers". Long and rambling "lectures" wouldn't have perfect recall but a few "important" points might be long-remembered.

As to the long anticipated arrival of a Messiah, well, is it any different from the long proclaimed end of the World? Say it often enough and it'll get believed? The end of the World is coming...... but it's a long time off yet.

Re: It's been a while :-)

**bustysinclaire** — Fri, 26 Jan 2018 11:05:51 GMT

Hi all 🙂
We'll I must say thank you for replying. I held off from reading and replying because I really thought that I would get a negative response and just the usual ridicule, how mistaken I was. Xx

Of course there are one or two points in a few posts I would correct or put my opinion on but really I think those are probably known, and you are stating yours but otherwise it was all I could have asked for a discussion on the topic I posted. Thank you. Xxx

Re: It's been a while :-)

**bustysinclaire** — Fri, 02 Feb 2018 13:18:38 GMT

To continue the thoght, very relevant.

With respect the articles within need to be read. xx

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/awake-no6-2017-december/

Re: It's been a while :-)

**bustysinclaire** — Fri, 02 Feb 2018 13:23:25 GMT

Didn't mean that to sound rude, I am sorry but I ran out of edit time.

I was trying to say.

With respect the articles within need to be read for the points of relevance (I was making) to be noted. xx