Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Is Jesus coming back?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 415 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 29 May 2012 10:17:20 BDT
richard says:
Lela,

you seemed to be saying that the scriptures were written during times when they had to be made allegorical due to the writers needing to protect themselves which is what i questioned as, to the best of my knowledge, that was not the case. As you have rightly guessed i am interested in ancient history including the origins of Judaism and Christianity therefore interested in what knowledge you might have on the subject that would lead you to write as you did. you now seem to be saying that you have arrived at your conclusions based on the bible and your understanding of it. i still don't know what you have read in the scriptures to make you think as you do but at least i now understand your source material.

you are now saying that the scriptures exist because they were compiled to the norms of the society (during) the time they were created. but this seems to be at odds with your previous assertion. i would agree that they were written in an environment that was conducive to their content which is to say there was no need for the writers to be secretive or to write allegorically due to fear that the contents might put their lives at risk. there might however be other reasons for some parts being allegorical.

i highly recommend 'the history of ancient Israel' by Michael Grant which uses Jewish scriptures and records to help put together a picture of Canaan over the course of several millennia up to about 70CE

best wishes

In reply to an earlier post on 29 May 2012 10:22:32 BDT
richard says:
Light,

hi i thought you had left the forum? it's a bit like hotel California here! yes i was a bit lax but what i said was based on an understanding that Lela was referring to the bible.

are you hanging round for a bit longer then?

have a good day, sun is shining and i need to go paddling with son soon.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 May 2012 19:47:35 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 29 May 2012 21:07:29 BDT
Shakepen says:
Spin: Here! Here! Did any of my ale spill from the tankard when I slammed it on the bar?

In reply to an earlier post on 29 May 2012 21:52:24 BDT
Spin says:
Shakespen: Do not worry. I have had no complaints so far about my expertise in "licking it up". Hubba hubba! =)

In reply to an earlier post on 29 May 2012 23:01:04 BDT
Lela says:
Richard,

"you seemed to be saying that the scriptures were written during times when they had to be made allegorical due to the writers needing to protect themselves which is what i questioned as, to the best of my knowledge, that was not the case."

I really tried hard to explain:) why sometime people might have to write things and send indirect messages rather than be quite DIRECT to what they have to say. If you think that this was not the case, then it just shows that everyone interprets the same words in different ways:)

"As you have rightly guessed i am interested in ancient history including the origins of Judaism and Christianity therefore interested in what knowledge you might have on the subject that would lead you to write as you did. you now seem to be saying that you have arrived at your conclusions based on the bible and your understanding of it. i still don't know what you have read in the scriptures to make you think as you do but at least i now understand your source material."

This knowledge of ancient history would have helped me to have a better educated opinion. However, my source material for the moment is purely based on logic, trying to put my "brain at work", so it is like trying to develop a theory that would not lead to logical contradictions. This is a never ending process. I am not in this forum to give my opinions, but rather to put them to test, and learn from yours and open the mind to new thinking.

"you are now saying that the scriptures exist because they were compiled to the norms of the society (during) the time they were created."

What I tried to say is that if they did not comply, they would not exist.
If you have 6 Scriptures A B C D E F. A B C comply to the society morals and are published. D E F do not comply, are not published. 100 years later only A B C exist. (Those D E F would have had a chance to survive, if they were writen as symbols, allegories, so that it would not have been obvious to realise that they did not comply to the society morals and understanding)

I think we should not continue on this particular topic, because I am trying to explain the same idea in five different ways, but apparantly I am failing at it, so I don't think I would be able to explain it better than I have tried so far...

In reply to an earlier post on 29 May 2012 23:51:52 BDT
Spin says:
Lela: why did Jesus curse the fig tree (a source of alcohol) while turning water into alcohol?

Posted on 29 May 2012 23:53:55 BDT
Lela says:
What do you think?

In reply to an earlier post on 30 May 2012 00:00:53 BDT
Spin says:
Lela: What doI think? I think the writers of the NT got confused between condemning pleasure and forming a religion that catered to Roman pleasures...

Posted on 30 May 2012 00:06:34 BDT
Last edited by the author on 30 May 2012 00:21:35 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 30 May 2012 00:21:41 BDT
Lela says:
That is a possible explanation.
Another one that comes to mind is that the parable of the fig tree has nothing to do with alcohol.
Or that the "religion created" got the inheritance of Jesus and used it to the benefit of the Roman pleasures.
Does Jesus explain somewhere that is related to alchohol, do you know the source of this interpretation linked to alchohol?

Posted on 30 May 2012 00:29:08 BDT
Lela says:
Richard,
I found this one in the OT from Judges 9.

9 But the olive tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honour God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?
10 And the trees said to the fig tree, Come thou, and reign over us.
11 But the fig tree said unto them, Should I forsake my sweetness, and my good fruit, and go to be promoted over the trees?

Is this not allegoric?

In reply to an earlier post on 30 May 2012 00:53:08 BDT
Shakepen says:
Richard: Dr. Johnson suggests that allegorical interpretation is used to resolve contradictions and other problems in Biblical reading. There may be a simpler explanation. Writers do not proclaim, "Hey, I'm writing an allegory." An allegory makes sense on multiple levels, and it is incumbent upon the reader to make sense of these levels. One, of course, thinks of Spenser's Faerie Queen in this regard. If one wanted a quick prose work to quote, one might mention Pilgrim's Progess. Neither of these two have allegory plastered on the front page. Hence, one would not expect the Bible to proclaim its allegorical nature. It would be up to the reader to connect the images.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 May 2012 02:47:50 BDT
light says:
Hi Richard,

I missed the bantering but not the badgering that goes on here. I'm just hovering for now looking for something interesting or new, which does not include juvenile name calling.

Hope you had fun paddling with your son, I just celebrated my son's 16 birthday, a new level of fun begins :D

Paddle with your son while you can because before you know it he will be paddling with his sweet-heart!

In reply to an earlier post on 30 May 2012 04:24:59 BDT
Shakepen says:
Lela: An allegory is a story told on two levels. The allegoric level parallels the literal level but is symbolic of something else. An allegory is something more than a simple symbolic reference. That is to say, poetry is symbolic, but it is not allegoric necessarily. For example, The Tall Toms, one of my favorite poems, is a short poem, but quite symbolic in its meaning. However, it is not allegoric.

I do not dispute your claim that parts of the Bible may be allegoric. When you read, however, you must remember that there is a story carried on below the level of literal meaning that makes sense. Sorry to sound so pedantic, but I'm trying to be helpful.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 May 2012 08:55:22 BDT
Acts5v29 says:
===
Lela: Shakespen is correct. On this forum,your faith and beliefs will be questioned to the extreme. A word of advice: when replying to atheists, keep it simple. Atheists do not grasp the depth of religious and spiritual beliefs. =)
===

This saddens me. It treats disection as more noble than the beauty it is determined to destroy.

Like a work of art, love of God and confidence in the Heavens need contemplation in order to see their value.

Lela: not all atheists - by any means - have an adversarial manner.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 May 2012 08:58:09 BDT
Lela says:
Shakepen
thanks for your post, which was quite helpful to me.

Do you have an idea of what is the literal meaning of the "fig tree"? at your level of understanding:) because it seems of quite importance to the Bible. Would you share the poem Tall Toms here. Tried to find it on the internet this poem but could not find it. Thank you

Posted on 30 May 2012 09:24:55 BDT
Last edited by the author on 30 May 2012 09:25:26 BDT
Acts5v29 says:
Lela (fig tree),

You might find Luke 13 of interest in this. There Jesus speaks of an accident befalling some people - and the belief that they must have dome something terrible to die in such a way - but he says:

"do YOU imagine that they were proved greater debtors than *all other men inhabiting Jerusalem*? No, indeed, I tell YOU; but, unless YOU repent, YOU will all be destroyed in the same way."

Then he speaks of God as owning a fig tree in His vineyard which has produced no fruit for years, suggesting that perhaps it should be uprooted, but Jesus - the vine-dresser - asks if he may give it six months more tending before making a decision. It shows that the Jerusalem's rejection of the Messiah - and it's consequent destruction - were by no means fore-ordained.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 May 2012 09:42:00 BDT
A very interesting account there.

Most Dharmic religions have sacred fig tree metaphors similar to the Abrahamic religions.

Were fig trees the only trees to fruit in hot countries? It's bizarre that such a dry fruit bearing tree should hold the name "king of trees".

references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_fig#Hinduism

In reply to an earlier post on 30 May 2012 10:51:21 BDT
richard says:
Shakepen,

as i said to Lela, there may be other reasons why parts of the bible, and i was really only talking old testament, could be considered allegorical but to the best of my knowledge fear for the writer's/compilers life was not one of them. Cain and Able might be a good example of the struggle between the nomadic Israelites and the agricultural Canaanite's with the two cultures clashing and the Israelites gradually becoming more settled and turning to farming themselves.

i think there is a distinction between hiding information in a work because it is subversive to the authorities of the time (fear for the writers life) and allegory for other reasons. it makes a big difference to how one tries to interpret suspected allegory.

Posted on 30 May 2012 10:57:11 BDT
Lela says:
Thank you very much for this information. Will try and "think" and meditate on this, because I feel as if there is something of real importance on the fig tree metaphor.

Light and Richard, since you have children would you help me to find out what can be about children that Jesus says: it is easier for them to receive "Kingdom of God". During the time I was hearing religious interpretations only, I would think because they are innocent, but now that i have two very young children I can see it is much more than that.

How are children when they are very young, before we start to pass them our own knowledge of what is good and what is bad?! They are pure at heart, they are not ashamed to run around naked, (a bit like Adam and Eve) they can take a game from a friend and want to take it back home without "puting the label" I m stealing, they can bite each other and hug each other one minute later, they live in the present, they believe everything we tell to be true, so what is it about them that makes it easier for them to receive the Kingdom? let's stay open minded about what the Kingdom might mean for the moment. Thank you for helping to "see the light" :)

In reply to an earlier post on 30 May 2012 12:10:59 BDT
Lela says:
Richard: "i think there is a distinction between hiding information in a work because it is subversive to the authorities of the time (fear for the writers life) and allegory for other reasons. it makes a big difference to how one tries to interpret suspected allegory."

OK now I understand well what you meant...

In reply to an earlier post on 30 May 2012 13:02:06 BDT
richard says:
as long as people are genuine and prepared to make the effort to understand and be understood we can have interesting discussions. it took us both a while to get there but we tried and we succeeded.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 May 2012 13:23:54 BDT
Last edited by the author on 31 May 2012 14:14:44 BDT
richard says:
being an atheist i only see Jesus as a Jewish man versed in some Jewish scripture, a product of his time with a particular emphasis due to being or having been part of a particular religious group. i don't think that in such circumstances i can really say anything useful to you. i also have doubts concerning what Jesus said and what words might have been 'put into his mouth' later on. i have not come across any Jewish scripture referring to children in such a manner but then i haven't really looked. the only reference i have regarding children is the need to start teaching them the law.

In reply to an earlier post on 30 May 2012 13:44:35 BDT
Spin says:
Lela: Neither Jesus nor his biographers had to explain the fig since the hearers of Jesus' words and the readers of the gospels knew that the Roman world used the fig to make alchohol and spice up their wines. The parable of the fig tree makes no sense without a reference to the use of figs. The ancient world was just as hedonistic as our own; alcohol was a major contributor to the faults of society, as it is today. By cursing the fig tree, Jesus condemns both alcohol, the profitable businesses surrounding it and the actions resulting from alcohol abuse. (yet he also turns water into alcohol thus condoning the drinking of alcohol. I personally interpret the "turning of water into wine" as meaning "making people realise the value and worth of water (gods wine) over the grape-based alcoholic liquid. Jesus did not miraculouly turn water into wine, he altered our conception as to what is pleasurable and valuable).
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  38
Total posts:  415
Initial post:  13 Apr 2012
Latest post:  20 Jun 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions