• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Morality in Bible stories that you don't understand

Ok, so "forsaken" is because he is suffering. And who is Eloi? He didn't say Abba! Is he talking about Yhwh? Or Elohim?
There is the common significance regarding prophecy, with the same words in Psalms 22:1

1. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?


"Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani!" compared to the above, I would assume Eloi refers to God.
Yeah, I know that is the old translation. The new translation Elohim is PLURAL. So the question is who did Jesus see as God. The new translation or the old one?
There is another issue. I'll come back to it later. It's in relation to Yhwh sending poisonous snakes to bite the Israelites who were complaining to Moses about the mana (food) Numbers 21:6-9
 
Learner, the key phrase you used is IMO.

The bible is likely only a small part of the all the ancinet Jewish writings and the gopsels are sparse. And even modern Jews do not know the context in which the ancient Hebrews used the stories.

Your human barin fills in the blanks. I read of psychology exerments that demstrates how we humans fill in the blanks with what we think should be there. We naturaly fill in the blanks in order to make sense of something. The study called it a surival mechanism, interpolating sparse information to make a decision.

When we read good fiction like Lord Of The Rings we create the story in our heads. Our imagination makes the characters real.

Jesus is a charatcter in a fictional story possbly with some of it based on real events.
Of course steve. I don't claim to be the Guru of Christianity.
That s not the question posed to you. What would you think of somebody quoting Lord Of The Rings believing it really happened?
 
Learner, the key phrase you used is IMO.

The bible is likely only a small part of the all the ancinet Jewish writings and the gopsels are sparse. And even modern Jews do not know the context in which the ancient Hebrews used the stories.

Your human barin fills in the blanks. I read of psychology exerments that demstrates how we humans fill in the blanks with what we think should be there. We naturaly fill in the blanks in order to make sense of something. The study called it a surival mechanism, interpolating sparse information to make a decision.

When we read good fiction like Lord Of The Rings we create the story in our heads. Our imagination makes the characters real.

Jesus is a charatcter in a fictional story possbly with some of it based on real events.
Of course steve. I don't claim to be the Guru of Christianity.
That s not the question posed to you. What would you think of somebody quoting Lord Of The Rings believing it really happened?
We are just talking about the "character" named Jesus. Not about if he's real or not... That is another issue.
Other issue would be if he is god or not. Another issue is who is his dad...Etc etc...
 
Learner, you did not respoNd to my post on thw 10 Commanments and invoking the name of god.

Shall I call you Learner The Blasphemer for joking about the name of god with fellow Christians?

The Hebrew god was one of absolute authority and one of retribution. One is supposed to fear god's wrath for violating Mosaic Laws.
 
Learner, the key phrase you used is IMO.

The bible is likely only a small part of the all the ancinet Jewish writings and the gopsels are sparse. And even modern Jews do not know the context in which the ancient Hebrews used the stories.

Your human barin fills in the blanks. I read of psychology exerments that demstrates how we humans fill in the blanks with what we think should be there. We naturaly fill in the blanks in order to make sense of something. The study called it a surival mechanism, interpolating sparse information to make a decision.

When we read good fiction like Lord Of The Rings we create the story in our heads. Our imagination makes the characters real.

Jesus is a charatcter in a fictional story possbly with some of it based on real events.
Of course steve. I don't claim to be the Guru of Christianity.
That s not the question posed to you. What would you think of somebody quoting Lord Of The Rings believing it really happened?
Yeah I know the score. I'd think, who else apart from Tolkien, also wrote about the heroes and villains in LOTR? And those apart from J.K Rowling witnessing Harry Potter, and who else wrote the Book of Mormon apart from Joseph Smith and so on? The four Gospels plus Paul and other writings etc.., exceeds the biblical criteria of the need, for there to be more than one or two witnesses for any claim or testimony.
 
Ok, so "forsaken" is because he is suffering. And who is Eloi? He didn't say Abba! Is he talking about Yhwh? Or Elohim?
There is the common significance regarding prophecy, with the same words in Psalms 22:1

1. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?


"Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani!" compared to the above, I would assume Eloi refers to God.
Yeah, I know that is the old translation. The new translation Elohim is PLURAL. So the question is who did Jesus see as God. The new translation or the old one?
There is another issue.

An interesting but good point, which Gen1: 26, & John 1:1-3, should be highlighted:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
John 1:1-3

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.


The plural word expression seems to coincide with the 'time of Psalms being composed', since Jesus was not yet born on the Earth, which should in turn, also tallys with the singular use of the word, during the time of Jesus's crucifixion, being on earth.

* Edit: But plural in context to the Trinity, this would be within the doctrinal understanding regarding the 'Father and the Holy Spirit'.

 
Last edited:
Learner, the key phrase you used is IMO.

The bible is likely only a small part of the all the ancinet Jewish writings and the gopsels are sparse. And even modern Jews do not know the context in which the ancient Hebrews used the stories.

Your human barin fills in the blanks. I read of psychology exerments that demstrates how we humans fill in the blanks with what we think should be there. We naturaly fill in the blanks in order to make sense of something. The study called it a surival mechanism, interpolating sparse information to make a decision.

When we read good fiction like Lord Of The Rings we create the story in our heads. Our imagination makes the characters real.

Jesus is a charatcter in a fictional story possbly with some of it based on real events.
Of course steve. I don't claim to be the Guru of Christianity.
That s not the question posed to you. What would you think of somebody quoting Lord Of The Rings believing it really happened?
Yeah I know the score. I'd think, who else apart from Tolkien, also wrote about the heroes and villains in LOTR? And those apart from J.K Rowling witnessing Harry Potter, and who else wrote the Book of Mormon apart from Joseph Smith and so on? The four Gospels plus Paul and other writings etc.., exceeds the biblical criteria of the need, for there to be more than one or two witnesses for any claim or testimony.
But in LOTR there are witnesses in the story...

There are multiple witnesses to Loch Nesiie ad Bigfoot.

Why believe the gospels and not Homer?

Some ancient writers viewed Atlantis as fictional or metaphorical myth; others believed it to be real. Aristotle believed that Plato, his teacher, had invented the island to teach philosophy.

As I have posted before the Greek historrian Herodotus was known for writing hear say accounts by foregn travekers into alleged first hand accounts. In tye day probaly not what we woud call fraud, it was how commincations woked...by word of mouth with all the uncertaiy amd erros it entails.

The kids experiment. Line up 20 kids and whisper the story into the ear of the first kid who whispers into the ear of next kid.

How do you think the story sounds when the 20th kid repeats it out loud?

I read Tiolkin
s bio in tye 70s. The LOTR mythology did nor spring from nothing. He was an expert on mythology, lamguage, and folk tales He traveled Europe drinking and listening to local stories in pubs.

The OT Jewish writers would have been well aware of the mythology of other cultures. Gilgamesh vs Noah. The gospels are clearly influenced by Greek culture, not Jewish.

As to gospel witnesses there are no contemporaneous corroborating accounts.
 
Well yes the emphasis on the Trinity as a new word is not a new concept for the plural God. There's no conflict with the OT using this (newer) descriptive interpretative understanding, centuries later.

Not God the Father:

Judges 2:1-2
Now the angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim. And he said, “I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land which I have sworn to your fathers; and I said, ‘I will never break My covenant with you, and as for you, you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall tear down their altars.’ But you have not obeyed Me; what is this you have done?

Zechariah 3:1-2
Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. The Lord said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, Satan! Indeed, the Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?”

Genesis 22:15-18
Then the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, and said, “By Myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son, indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies.


(Angel = Messenger)
...........................................................................................
Spirit of the Lord:

2 Samuel 23:2

“The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me,
And His word was on my tongue.

Ezekiel 37:1

The hand of the Lord was upon me, and He brought me out by the Spirit of the Lord and set me down in the middle of the valley; and it was full of bones.


Judges 3:10

The Spirit of the Lord came upon him, and he judged Israel. When he went out to war, the Lord gave Cushan-rishathaim king of Mesopotamia into his hand, so that he prevailed over Cushan-rishathaim.


.............................................................................................

John 5: 46

For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
 
Last edited:
Ok, so "forsaken" is because he is suffering. And who is Eloi? He didn't say Abba! Is he talking about Yhwh? Or Elohim?
There is the common significance regarding prophecy, with the same words in Psalms 22:1

1. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?


"Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani!" compared to the above, I would assume Eloi refers to God.
Yeah, I know that is the old translation. The new translation Elohim is PLURAL. So the question is who did Jesus see as God. The new translation or the old one?
There is another issue.

An interesting but good point, which Gen1: 26, & John 1:1-3, should be highlighted:

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
John 1:1-3

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.


The plural word expression seems to coincide with the 'time of Psalms being composed', since Jesus was not yet born on the Earth, which should in turn, also tallys with the singular use of the word, during the time of Jesus's crucifixion, being on earth.

* Edit: But plural in context to the Trinity, this would be within the doctrinal understanding regarding the 'Father and the Holy Spirit'.


The 'word was with God' does not refer to Jesus.
 
It seems the Bible has been changed to add things that support the trinity:
1 John 5:7-8 (NIV)
7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

Footnotes
1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)
 
Christians love to quote the Old English bible translations.

Thee, thou.

Why not Aramaic?

Among the Jews, Aramaic was used by the common people, while Hebrew remained the language of religion and government and of the upper class. Jesus and the Apostles are believed to have spoken Aramaic, and Aramaic-language translations (Targums) of the Old Testament circulated.May 9, 2023
 
The Meaning and Origin of ‘In the Beginning Was the 'Word'


''In his endlessly informative Asimov’s Guide to the Bible: The New Testament: 002, the author and all-round polymath Isaac Asimov links John’s ‘In the beginning was the Word’ to the Greek philosophy of Thales of Miletus, who lived in the seventh century BC.


Thales argued that, contrary to the idea that the world was largely erratic and unpredictable in its operations, it was actually subject to rigid laws of nature, and that these laws could be discovered using reason and observation. This is the beginnings of both rationalism and empiricism, if you will.


‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ These are among the most famous lines in the New Testament: they begin the Gospel of St. John. But what does ‘In the beginning was the Word’ mean? Let’s take a closer look at the meaning of this famous opening sentence.


It’s perhaps helpful to begin by setting out the difference between the Gospel of John and the three other gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The Gospel of Mark is thought to have been composed the earliest of the four gospels, with Matthew and Luke basing their own accounts on it.

The gospel of John was written later still, and of the four, has the strongest claim to actually having been written by one of Jesus’ apostles. (It’s been speculated, though we cannot know for sure, that John may have written his account in the late first century AD, when he was an old man of nearly 90.)


Matthew, Mark, and Luke are grouped together as the ‘Synoptic’ gospels, from a word meaning ‘seeing together’. These three accounts all reflect each other to varying degrees.

But the Gospel of John is quite different. Right from those opening words, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God’, John is signalling that his account of Jesus’ life will be treating Jesus as much more than a human being.


This is not to say that the other gospel writers don’t also acknowledge that Jesus is the Messiah (as well as a human being), but that John’s Jesus is supernatural and ethereal – otherworldly, almost – right from the beginning.

‘In the beginning was the Word.’ But what does John mean by ‘the Word’? The original Greek text has Logos, for which ‘the Word’ is our English translation.


But Logos is a word that comes with a lot of meanings packed into it, and ‘the Word’ is only a partial reflection of this densely significant word. This term, ‘the Word’, is not found in the Old Testament, and its use in the New Testament is down entirely to John.

In his endlessly informative Asimov’s Guide to the Bible: The New Testament: 002, the author and all-round polymath Isaac Asimov links John’s ‘In the beginning was the Word’ to the Greek philosophy of Thales of Miletus, who lived in the seventh century BC.


Thales argued that, contrary to the idea that the world was largely erratic and unpredictable in its operations, it was actually subject to rigid laws of nature, and that these laws could be discovered using reason and observation. This is the beginnings of both rationalism and empiricism, if you will.

This meant that God – or, depending on which belief system you subscribed to, a whole pantheon of gods – created the world upon some clear and knowable principle, and that this principle is constant rather than changeable and arbitrary.


One of Thales’ followers, Heraclitus, used the term ‘Logos’ to refer to this rational principle. ‘Logos’ means ‘word’ but it also denotes the entire rational structure of knowledge as Thales and Heraclitus had theorised it.



And as the term ‘Logos’ was taken up by more and more philosophers, it came to refer not to some abstract entity but to a thing, even a person: the person who had created this orderly system of knowledge and principle in the world. Logos, if you will, became personified.


This tradition spread beyond the Greek world, and was taken up by the Jewish followers of Yahweh, or the Old Testament God. In Jesus’ time, a man named Philo the Jew popularised the term Logos as a reference to the rational aspect of Yahweh.'' - Dr Oliver Tearle (Loughborough University)
 
Learner, the key phrase you used is IMO.

The bible is likely only a small part of the all the ancinet Jewish writings and the gopsels are sparse. And even modern Jews do not know the context in which the ancient Hebrews used the stories.

Your human barin fills in the blanks. I read of psychology exerments that demstrates how we humans fill in the blanks with what we think should be there. We naturaly fill in the blanks in order to make sense of something. The study called it a surival mechanism, interpolating sparse information to make a decision.

When we read good fiction like Lord Of The Rings we create the story in our heads. Our imagination makes the characters real.

Jesus is a charatcter in a fictional story possbly with some of it based on real events.
Of course steve. I don't claim to be the Guru of Christianity.
That s not the question posed to you. What would you think of somebody quoting Lord Of The Rings believing it really happened?
Yeah I know the score. I'd think, who else apart from Tolkien, also wrote about the heroes and villains in LOTR? And those apart from J.K Rowling witnessing Harry Potter, and who else wrote the Book of Mormon apart from Joseph Smith and so on? The four Gospels plus Paul and other writings etc.., exceeds the biblical criteria of the need, for there to be more than one or two witnesses for any claim or testimony.
But in LOTR there are witnesses in the story...
I see. Did the LOTR witnesses mention or testify of Tolkiens existence himself, within the stories?

There are multiple witnesses to Loch Nesiie ad Bigfoot.
Why believe the gospels and not Homer?

There is a little more substance to the witnesses of the Gospels, when for example, the disciples, followed later by Christians who gave up their lives for what they saw and believed.

Some ancient writers viewed Atlantis as fictional or metaphorical myth; others believed it to be real. Aristotle believed that Plato, his teacher, had invented the island to teach philosophy.

As I have posted before the Greek historrian Herodotus was known for writing hear say accounts by foregn travekers into alleged first hand accounts. In tye day probaly not what we woud call fraud, it was how commincations woked...by word of mouth with all the uncertaiy amd erros it entails.
These could be categorized as reports, as the bible does reports, as everyday news do reports.
The kids experiment. Line up 20 kids and whisper the story into the ear of the first kid who whispers into the ear of next kid.

How do you think the story sounds when the 20th kid repeats it out loud?
Yeah well... the dead sea scrolls compared to the current bible proved the theory otherwise. No changes to the narrative.

I read Tiolkin
s bio in tye 70s. The LOTR mythology did nor spring from nothing. He was an expert on mythology, lamguage, and folk tales He traveled Europe drinking and listening to local stories in pubs.
Ok but Irony would have it. LOTR has an influence:

"J. R. R. Tolkien was a devout Roman Catholic from boyhood, and he described The Lord of the Rings in particular as a "fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision".[1][T 1] While he insisted it was not an allegory, it contains numerous themes from Christian theology. These include the battle of good versus evil, the triumph of humility over pride, and the activity of grace."

The OT Jewish writers would have been well aware of the mythology of other cultures. Gilgamesh vs Noah. The gospels are clearly influenced by Greek culture, not Jewish.
The bible mentions and acknowledges those cultures & the various pagan gods. If one reads, they'll notice the scriptures purposely separates itself from them. Although I do believe they are connected, i.e. These were he opposition to the biblical God.
As to gospel witnesses there are no contemporaneous corroborating accounts.
Yes well, understandably as humans go, if they're of a different religious belief / non-Christian sect, during that period... I doubt there'd be any corroboration from them because of the confliction with their own belief and pagan gods. Believers of Christ you could, but then they're not part of your criteria.


 
Last edited:
The Meaning and Origin of ‘In the Beginning Was the 'Word'


''In his endlessly informative Asimov’s Guide to the Bible: The New Testament: 002, the author and all-round polymath Isaac Asimov links John’s ‘In the beginning was the Word’ to the Greek philosophy of Thales of Miletus, who lived in the seventh century BC.


Thales argued that, contrary to the idea that the world was largely erratic and unpredictable in its operations, it was actually subject to rigid laws of nature, and that these laws could be discovered using reason and observation. This is the beginnings of both rationalism and empiricism, if you will.


‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ These are among the most famous lines in the New Testament: they begin the Gospel of St. John. But what does ‘In the beginning was the Word’ mean? Let’s take a closer look at the meaning of this famous opening sentence.


It’s perhaps helpful to begin by setting out the difference between the Gospel of John and the three other gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The Gospel of Mark is thought to have been composed the earliest of the four gospels, with Matthew and Luke basing their own accounts on it.

The gospel of John was written later still, and of the four, has the strongest claim to actually having been written by one of Jesus’ apostles. (It’s been speculated, though we cannot know for sure, that John may have written his account in the late first century AD, when he was an old man of nearly 90.)


Matthew, Mark, and Luke are grouped together as the ‘Synoptic’ gospels, from a word meaning ‘seeing together’. These three accounts all reflect each other to varying degrees.

But the Gospel of John is quite different. Right from those opening words, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God’, John is signalling that his account of Jesus’ life will be treating Jesus as much more than a human being.


This is not to say that the other gospel writers don’t also acknowledge that Jesus is the Messiah (as well as a human being), but that John’s Jesus is supernatural and ethereal – otherworldly, almost – right from the beginning.

‘In the beginning was the Word.’ But what does John mean by ‘the Word’? The original Greek text has Logos, for which ‘the Word’ is our English translation.


But Logos is a word that comes with a lot of meanings packed into it, and ‘the Word’ is only a partial reflection of this densely significant word. This term, ‘the Word’, is not found in the Old Testament, and its use in the New Testament is down entirely to John.

In his endlessly informative Asimov’s Guide to the Bible: The New Testament: 002, the author and all-round polymath Isaac Asimov links John’s ‘In the beginning was the Word’ to the Greek philosophy of Thales of Miletus, who lived in the seventh century BC.


Thales argued that, contrary to the idea that the world was largely erratic and unpredictable in its operations, it was actually subject to rigid laws of nature, and that these laws could be discovered using reason and observation. This is the beginnings of both rationalism and empiricism, if you will.

This meant that God – or, depending on which belief system you subscribed to, a whole pantheon of gods – created the world upon some clear and knowable principle, and that this principle is constant rather than changeable and arbitrary.


One of Thales’ followers, Heraclitus, used the term ‘Logos’ to refer to this rational principle. ‘Logos’ means ‘word’ but it also denotes the entire rational structure of knowledge as Thales and Heraclitus had theorised it.



And as the term ‘Logos’ was taken up by more and more philosophers, it came to refer not to some abstract entity but to a thing, even a person: the person who had created this orderly system of knowledge and principle in the world. Logos, if you will, became personified.


This tradition spread beyond the Greek world, and was taken up by the Jewish followers of Yahweh, or the Old Testament God. In Jesus’ time, a man named Philo the Jew popularised the term Logos as a reference to the rational aspect of Yahweh.'' - Dr Oliver Tearle (Loughborough University)
I always understood "In the beginning was the word" as "In the beginning was VIBRATION..." (Sound)

 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom