I refuse to be preached to from the Old Testament

And, presumably, the OT is closer to 'the word of God' than the NT.

 

No. That is not how it works. If you study the OT and its background against the NT you can see the difference.

Christianity reaches that Mary was a virgin, The OT talks of a maiden - not a virgin. There is a distinct difference.

Christianity put Joseph and family in Egypt because of Hosea 11:1. Hosea refers to Israel. If you add Jesus then he must be added to the rest of the chapter or taken out of context. Christianity has taken it out of context. That makes the whole Bible nonsensical playground for interpretation.

Joseph is recorded as going to Bethlehem for the census. The census was a tax on property. Josephs property was in Nazareth. The Romans didn't care where individuals lived, just tax on their property. Joseph had no need to go to Bethlehem. 1000 years after the death of the tribal king David, a 1000 years of turmoil for Israel with invasions, internal wars, exile in Babylon and the chaos of the Hasmonean kingdom which fell to the Romans, the possibility of Joseph having any property in Nazareth is nonsense.

David, we are told, had 20 known sons. Given the importance of large families those 20 sons each would have produced 25 generations of unknown numbers of sons. If they had all decended on Bethlehem - as they were of the house and lineage of David - possibly hundreds of thousands of people would have descended on the 'town' of Bethlehem as all the males would have had property there - the reason for the census. That makes Bethlehem a far larger city than Jerusalem. The whole thing is nonsense. Also the fact that Mary - as a pregnant woman under Jewish custom - was exempt from any travel until after the birth and weaning of the child.

If you follow the stories of Matthew and Luke according to the customs of the day, Matthew sends Jesus to Egypt. Luke, on the other hand, has the couple returning to Nazareth about 6 weeks after the birth and after Jewish ritual is complete. There they remain till Jesus has grown up. Jesus in 2 places at once is a miracle.

Matthew and Luke simply put together a story which does not stand up to scrutiny.

I am not Jewish, just a student of the REAL bible which includes a study of the backgound on which it was written, Judaism, ancient history. Without that the Bible is a superficial document.

 

With a history of deep investigation into several religions, both Christian and non-Christian, and after years of what is commonly referred to as “spiritual experiences”, I will tell you that complete rejection of religion is far, far better and more healthy than mechanically believing the bible literally. The truth within the bible (and yes, there is great truth there) is not found in factual understandings of it, but is found when it produces a spiritual awareness within, symbolized by the words of the bible but also hidden within it. Some people are able to discern this hidden truth but most are not, and they then distort the meaning on the basis of their mistaken literal understandings. This leads most into myth, falsehood, and error. That is what religion has become after centuries of the majority working on it, “explaining” it, and changing it out of ignorance.

 

Not really. Jesus was really about “translating” the OT from a deeply symbolic allegory filled with metaphor into something a bit more developed and easier to experience. His message was still cloaked in symbolism and metaphor, so much so that over the centuries humans have successfully stripped most of the spirit from it in favor of the dead literal meaning, but it is just a bit easier for the insightful person to experience it than the OT.

 

I am not sure about you drawing a direct connection between the former premise above and the latter premise. I am going to ask you some questions I DONT claim to have the answers to broaden and flesh out this line of reason and its evidence.

My first point here is that by deduction, you appear to conflate 'what is better and healthiest for us' with not believing myth, falsehood and error. I think that is a complex question. There are studies that show some real pscho-social benefits to belief in God or being spiritual and/or being religious and/or attending church ( I realize that all of those are entirely separate and require individual examination) . The mere fact that it all may be based on myth, falsehood and error, does not inherently detract from any of said benefits. This is a lot to parse out, I grant you, but some people appear to be happy, and content and 'happy' in their faith and religion and they certainly report so in some of those studies. I won't even get into what is 'better', because therein is a doctorate thesis in philosphy.

This sentence needs some contextualizing. 'Some people are able to discern this hidden truth, but most are not, and they then distort the meaning on the basis of their mistaken literal understandings' mostly because I suspect you have an incomplete false choice here. There are as many 'hidden truths' in religion as there are believers and as many distortions are there are believers. Christians end up making their own religious 'stew' from what they learn and what they experience, out of different ingrediants, different spices that they put in it, and as they digest it, there is always a different nutritional benefits and risks to what they consume and what their disparate digestive processes extracts from what they spooned in.

 

"For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2Peter 1:16-21

 

Maybe it's the perception of Him that changes.

 

exactly, he is made up character in an ancient middle eastern myth, with time people's perception of his character changes

 

The leap from the OT to the NT is a monumental difference.

In the OT, we have god as the law. Those outside the law are hell bound, and susceptible to the death penalty on Earth as well.

In the NT, we have god as love, expressed toward every human, regardless of the law. In fact, Matthew quotes Jesus as clearly and directly stating that if a Christian isn't searching out and helping those in prison, in hospitals, in poverty, that Christian is hell bound.

That's a LOT more than a nuance.

 

I find that "stew", as well as the huge numbers of other religions, as one basis for serious questioning of the existence of the supreme being of the Bible.

 

While there are benefits enjoyed by some few “believers” including “psycho-social” ones, the distortions, negative behavior, and absence of solid resolution of personal and national problems due to religious interference, greatly out-number the benefits in my estimation. When we look at the Evangelical cult supporting Trump and the Christian Nationalists advocating authoritarian dictatorship, not to mention every imaginable instance of excusing bad choices and bad outcomes by saying “God acts in mysterious ways” we see evil consequences. That is why there are laws against relying only on prayer to heal deathly ill children rather than seeking medical services. The happiness of some religious people is often found in anecdotal evidence of family members to also involve some significantly negative and consequential negative behavior like emotional and even physical abuse, etc.

Your mention of "as many 'hidden truths' in religion as there are believers and as many distortions” needs to be seen in the context of Jesus and what the bible says about him. He is not presented as entertaining a variety of hidden truths or interpretations of anything he explained more fully. We can be sure that when we read "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him” and "but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter” and "the carnal mind is enmity against God for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be”, we are not being subjected to a meaning that has various hidden interpretations, but have one specific meaning each, even though religionists have assigned them and many more verses a variety of meanings. And therefore and thereby the bible has become a very worldly and “carnal” in its modern meaning. The spirit has been stripped out of it to a very large extent.

The bible was not originally intended to simply provide a reason for good behavior based on their own “religious stew”. “He who has ears to hear, let him hear” is the call to certain people. 1st Corin 2:6-7 says "We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden …..” and religionists have made this out to mean the “hidden, secret wisdom” is now fully revealed in the NT for anyone who may wish to read it. That is false. And one last example is Luke 17:21 which says "when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God does not come with observation; "nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.” In this example the inability of most, as opposed to “few there be that enter”, introduces several errors that they find “comfortable”. First, some who refuse to belief “the kingdom of God is within you” falsely translate it to say “the kingdom of God is among you” and say that it is Jesus pointing to himself because he was there, among them. But the Greek word translated as “within” or “among” is “entos” which is used in several other places in the NT where it is correctly translated as “within” as can be confirmed to be correct by the context, and nowhere else in the bible is “entos” translated as “among”. The correct translation is “within you”. And another error of personal preference is in the general claim of “Jesus” being within when the real meaning is “Christ” being within, and yes there is a difference. But in any case notice here that the statement “the kingdom of God is within you” was said to a group of unbelieving Pharisees, which blows away those false interpretations of religionists.

So we can see that multiple and varying interpretations was not intended, and in fact such variations have crept in as a result of the human worldly mind injecting them when unable to accept or even grasp the real meaning. And as time goes on this gets worse and worse with such things eventually being seen as “justified" by some as the claims of Christian Nationalists, Evangelicals, Heavens Gate, and an assortment of other bogus and crazy groups.

 

Charity is good in a physical sense. There is also spiritual poverty, sickness, hunger, thirst, deafness, blindness, and imprisonment.

God isn't a myth. He is real. He lives and is divine. You have forgotten him. When you were young, you were innocent. Now you are not. You have changed, but God remains the same. If he gives us line upon line and precept upon precept. It isn't him changing, but us by his favor to bring about his purpose in our creation and an inheritance in his kingdom.

 

But you have zero evidence. God is a myth.

 

This is seriously derogatory of the statement of Jesus as quoted by Matthew in Matthew 25:31-end.

He did NOT say "charity is good in a physical sense".

He said that those of his followers who do not search out people in need and help them, though they may be his followers, are going to hell along side Satan.

 

Here you are trying to opine, quote and interpret the Bible for me so I know I did not make myself clear enough. I am putting your views at the end of one VERY VERY LONG LINE of people who want to do that for me. I assume you, like everyone else quoting that tome, have your preferred hidden truths, and your preferred literal or figurative or symbolic meanings and biases. They reflect your religious or atheistic stew, which I am sure is satiating to you.

But I trust no one to tell me anything about the Bible unless they have the requisite formal educational background which includes the theological, historic, as well some linquistic education in Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek, and an objectivity very few own.

 

Fine. But my understandings are consistent with those of the Christian mystics (St. John of the Cross, Meister Eckhart, Mme Jeanne Guyon, St. Catherine of Genoa, St. Catherine of Sienna, etc.) IOW the monastics, plus the teachings of Buddhism (Thich Nhat Hanh mainly) and Hinduism (Swami Vivekananda, Swami Prabhavananda, Swami Abhedananda, etc.). The essence of their teachings are in full agreement. And my understanding is not based on my readings, but on my practice while following their example.

Your adherence to theological, historic, as well some linguistic education in Hebrew, Aramaic, etc. is good evidence of having the kind of worldly understanding Jesus is said to have mentioned. But relying on your educational perspective you can easily examine the correctness of my comments about Luke 17:21 and “entos”. All you need is a good concordance.

Your determination to remain true to worldly understandings is noteworthy.

 

Sound to me like you are turning Jesus's words into a condemnation of his servants, rather than a counseling of his servants to not turn away the needy. When Jesus said to Peter, "if you love me, feed my sheep", he wasn't talking about physical food. We are dual in nature, spiritual and physical. For goodness sakes, Christianity isn't a bread line. Remember Jesus asking the woman if she would give the children's food to the dogs? That said, I don't know of any Christian denomination that doesn't serve the needy within their reach. In so doing, they serve Jesus Christ at least in that thing.

 

I agree with everything except the emboldened. I will not understand Luke 17:21 and 'entos' with a good concordance. I will not without adequate context.

Adequate linquistic context means understanding the nuances and subtleties of the language that Luke 17:21 was originally translated from as well as the language it was translated into. I have taken enough of a modern foreign language to know how tricky it is to properly and fully translate and grasp the levels of meaning in a piece of literature that I have studied for several years. . I cannot assume its easier if its a foreign language with centuries of change added.

I also need the right cultural context including the religious and historical context in which that society was immersed. Imagine how difficult that would be for me to acquire centuries after that culture existed. Way too many people think they can understand the Bible with a good concordance sufficient to gleen God's intent and meaning. That's a pretty big deal to risk mistakes with. I think they are all wrong.

If you don't have a dual major in college, you had better pray that God provides you the right understanding, or you should pray for more humility.

 

Not true. I have evidence. You have no evidence. It is something one must find for oneself.

 

All comments of what the bible calls “carnal mind”. You’re telling me we cannot understand the bible without college-level courses. LOL!!!!

Just open to the Spirit.

 

You THINK you have evidence. But you don’t because there is none. Everything said by “believers” to be cases of God intervening is merely mind functioning.

Do you know what “the anointing” is? I have experienced it.
Do you know what “the peace of God” is? I have experienced it.
Do you know what “unconditional love” is? I have experienced it.

But you “have evidence”? Tell me more. But you can’t.

 

Yes. You don't know what these words mean, unless you speak the language fluently enough to understand connotative and literal meanings, multiple and possibly lost meanings, and how they were applied in that culture with that collective and communal memory. That takes a lot of time to learn and access. Otherwise you are entrusting your understanding with at least one third party, and probably more.

 

When Jesus stated the duty to search for people in prison, in hospitals, in poor houses and provide them with their needs, are you suggesting that he wasn't talking about their need for food?

Christianity isn't a bread line, but through his life and his clear direction he absolute communicates that Christians have a physical, human duty to fellow man, regardless of their beliefs, criminality, sin, or foreign origin.

And, in Matthew 25, Matthew says Jesus stated that his followers who fail to walk the walk will go to hell.

He told the rich man to sell his stuff. He washed that woman's feet. His statement in Matthew was not so out of character that it can be ignored.

I do not believe someone can call themselves a Christian while blowing off what Jesus is recorded as saying and doing.

I'm not saying the each of us needs to assure that everyone is fed. According to the USDA, more than 34 million people, including 9 million children, in the United States are food insecure. You and I are not going to fix that.

But, we ARE a nation of rich white male Christians who, with the leadership of McCarthy and other leaders want to cut the healthcare of those who can't afford it, who support white nationalism, who write laws damaging women's healthcare, who work to exclude those who aren't hetero and treat those of other nations as garbage.

That doesn't hit me as being consistent with the direct message of god handed though Jesus.

 

That you, by hearing of God, have conjured an image of God in your mind, does not make God a myth. The myth is what you have conjured. But it is good that you realize your limitations and ability to fool yourself thru vain imaginings. However, to reckon by this that there is no God, is a premature conclusion. It only means that God is not what we make, imagine, wish, conclude, build, think or otherwise conjure, approximate, or counterfeit, by our resources or talents.

 

Wow. For all the knowledge/wisdom displayed on this site we have no evidence for GOD of any kind.
For all the words of Jesus quoted we don't really know what he actually said. Only what the Christian writers of the Gospels want us to believe.