romansh

Campbell ... where West meets East ...

Does this work? Gus Lott | Facebook

Content not available? The link works for me?

I think Gus has interesting interpretations. Gus Lott - John 1:12-13, "But to all who received him, who... | Facebook

If we go to my Rex Weyler link, where Weyler used his journalistic skills and quoted everything that could be reasonably (in his opinion) ascribed to Jesus, then there is nothing apocalyptic in those 27 lines or so. If he accepted that there was evil then why are told not to judge? Divvying things into good and evil is judging.

Filched from Ogdin's facebook page Yes, the apocalypse does seem in contradiction with the "kingdom is already present".

And this brings me back to my mantra. What reasons do we have to try and decipher the interpretations of scribes years after the death of a mystic Jew, where these scribes may or may not have had a good handle on where Jesus was going with all this? This brings me also to the work of Weyler who used his journalistic talents to ascertain what Jesus might have said. Here are a few lines grouped by topic: Otherwise, avoid rules and follow the truth you discover yourself. Act from awareness, not habit or convention. Don’t blindly repeat rituals. Don’t trust those with spiritual pretensions. Question those who presume to speak for God. Discover the truth for yourself! Look around and try and work out how the universe ticks.

@Ogdin did not say Qumran was not an Essene community. To me says the opposite. We are 'here' because: It has been postulated that Jesus was a determinist like the Essenes. Jesus's teachings are at odds with Pharisaic and Sadducaical teachings. Some scholars think John the Baptist was an Essene. If Jesus did not believe in 'free will' then that puts a different light on much that goes on in the texts. Just as an aside here is a bit from ChatGPT ... These other scholars tend not to be modern per se.

[124] They have no one certain city, but many of them dwell in every city; and if any of their sect come from other places, what they have lies open for them, just as if it were their own; and they go in to such as they never knew before, as if they had been ever so long acquainted with them. For which reason they carry nothing at all with them when they travel into remote parts, though still they take their weapons with them, for fear of thieves. Accordingly, there is, in every city where they live, one appointed particularly to take care of strangers, and to provide garments and other necessaries for them. But the habit and management of their bodies is such as children use who are in fear of their masters. Nor do they allow of the change of or of shoes till be first torn to pieces, or worn out by time. Nor do they either buy or sell any thing to one another; but every one of them gives what he hath to him that wanteth it, and receives from him again in lieu of it what may be convenient for himself; and although there be no requital made, they are fully allowed to take what they want of whomsoever they please. Flavius Josephus. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by. William Whiston, A.M. Auburn and Buffalo. John E. Beardsley. 1895. Tufts University provided support for entering this text. a link here

I pointed this passage out. The reply: I don’t know why some scholars equate essenes with the dead sea community. Josephus talks about them being in every city, not isolated in the desert. He talks about their communal living in wats that are very similar to the stuff in various parts of the New Testament.

While dualism may well have been typical of the time, was Jesus typical of Jewish tradition? He may well have been apocalyptic, but that does not rule out other flavours as well. The above is a quote from Dr Lott that I filched from Facebook. Who happens to have posted on this site that the Admin and mods have somehow neglected to welcome. What does Bart say about Jesus and Essene?

Paul ... your reply seems to indicate that Jesus somehow believed we had free will and that god will take control at some point. Who or what did Jesus think was in control during his time?

While what Jesus thought what we need saving from is an interesting question, what we think we need saving from would be far more interesting. There is some evidence that Jesus was an Essene, a Jewish sect who were determinists ... and by implication that did not believe in free will. This apparently was why Jesus kept butting heads with Pharisees, a sect that did believe in free will. So if, Jesus thought we did not have free will, it makes being saved an interesting concept. If anyone needs more info on this, PM @Ogdin or take a look at Dr Lott's youtube in the free will thread.

And the third in this particular series Christianity 101: Does Jesus Save Us? | PlainSpeech with Philip Gulley And his salient point: This is my take on it: The salvation of man is through understanding and in understanding I'm not sure salvation is the right word either. What is there to be saved?

It would seem our Phil does not think Jesus was born God incarnate. Presumably, he thinks he did not rise from the dead either. I realize that this is perfectly in tune with Progressive Christianity, but it would seem an anathema to the bulk of Christianity. Phil is on his way to joining the likes of Gretta Vosper and John Shelby Spong.

Heresy ... I like it. One step closer to implicit atheism.

I would remind everyone of the French philosopher, Auguste Comte, who predicted in the 1800s, we will never know the composition of the stars. Little did he know the science for determining such things had been developed a few years earlier. We are always learning, or at least I hope that will be the case. All are products of the universe and not separate from it.

👍👍 👍👍 👍👍 👍👍 👍 Remember this applies to people who don't care for one another too.

This is sort of why I like Joseph Campbell he tried to divine the meaning of the various myths we have floating around. Not sure he succeeded, but he tried. Again ... what are the properties of this "god" we are supposed to be (in)validating? If we get close then we will get the chapter ... we cannot truly know God. As an agnostic, I have some sympathy for this position. But tell me, what can we truly know? And having said that, with a few assumed axioms I can be fairly certain that the Earth is an oblate spheroid. And that it revolves around the Sun in an ellipse. I am fairly sure your science of god being Christian is pretty much a Western point of view. Islam and Subcontinental religions will likely have their own god science departments. Behave is a tough book ... (remember the last four pages ... if you feel the need to give up.) Yeah ... I keep pounding away at this. Nature versus nurture debate. There is no dichotomy here ... there is no separation between us and the environment (universe). The separation ... is an illusion.

We need God to be caring to one another?

Sorry, could not resist: Theology ... a subject without an object. Overall I thought it was a good sermon for people who are entrapped in a doctrinally dogmatic Christian sect. I suspect there aren't many in his flock, but his blog will have some outreach, I suppose. His comment on "God" not being the province of science, I thought was particularly wrong and misleading. If there is a cause and effect then science, if we put our minds to it, can have its say. Unless we think "God" has no effect and did not do anything, then God may as well not exist. Experiences of profound and deep clarity, joy, forgiveness, reconciliation, compassion, understanding, etc is God really? I call them experiences. I recommend to Phil he should read Robert Sapolsky's Behave: The Biology of Humans at Their Best and Worst. It's a dense read ... Alternatively ... in a library or bookshop read the last four summary pages. In a Spirit rooted within us? ... Needs more clarification and supporting evidence. Ultimately I see this as a step towards standing on our own two feet and going about the world understanding our connection (inseparableness) with it.

What happens to 'you' when one has a well-administered anesthetic? The second law of thermodynamics makes me very skeptical about life after death. Life appears to behave as a 'catalyst' for increasing entropy. And edit ... welcome David

This could have gone in many threads. Here Gus talks about how the Bible might be interpreted as being a determinist document at least in places.

Funnily enough, I see this related to free will. No surprise. I posted this before ... Will – rom's corner (home.blog) Desire is an aspect of our will. Just be aware that we have them and try and get a sense of where our desires come from ... similar to our 'aversions'. Letting go of our desires is a little bit like letting go of our egos. Somehow we want "better" and not being content with where we are now. A desire to rid ourselves of desire.

This young man, I think, does a god job against compatibilist free will.