How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[Tryharder62]

Ishmael was a legal son. Sarah arranged for Hagar to bear her husband’s son. Genesis 16.

Sarah would not recognize him as her own.

In Genesis 16 Sarah suggests that Abraham should have a child with her slave Hagar, an Egyptian. Apparently, this was a somewhat common practice at the time (also practiced in Genesis 30 by Jacob’s wives): the wife would give a female slave to her husband, but any children born would be counted as the children of the wife (perhaps an ancient version of surrogacy). While this may have seemed like a workable solution for Abraham and Sarah, in actuality it caused more problems than it solved.

 

[Tryharder62]

Which of the rewrites of oral tradition (folktales) are historically accurate? How can you tell?

If it bothers you so much learn greek and hebrew.

 

[phrodeau]

Sarah would not recognize him as her own.

In Genesis 16 Sarah suggests that Abraham should have a child with her slave Hagar, an Egyptian. Apparently, this was a somewhat common practice at the time (also practiced in Genesis 30 by Jacob’s wives): the wife would give a female slave to her husband, but any children born would be counted as the children of the wife (perhaps an ancient version of surrogacy). While this may have seemed like a workable solution for Abraham and Sarah, in actuality it caused more problems than it solved.

God wasn't talking to Sarah, now was He?

 

[Tryharder62]

God wasn't talking to Sarah, now was He?

Personally, I think that Sarah wore the pants in the family. Sarah's jealousy and some of the things Ishmael was doing got Ishmeal and Hagar cast out. Like I said at the time the son that Abraham loved was Isaac. It wasn't until later that Abraham and Ishmael reconciled.

I think Abraham knew exactly who God was talking about.

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

Which of the rewrites of oral tradition (folktales) are historically accurate? How can you tell?

You realize that there are DOZENS of non biblical secular historical writings regarding Christ from His day and shortly afterward right from Roman historians and others? Not to mention the Biblical eyewitness accounts of Him the Church writings, the apochriphical writings, the agnostic writings, the synoptic gospels...right? It's not folktale, it's actual history.

 

[Hypoxia]

If it bothers you so much learn greek and hebrew.

Hebrew Scripture (*) wasn't written in any form of Greek. The folktales circulated in oral tradition long before writing. People tend to make stuff up when they tell tales. Folktales unsupported by facts shouldn't be taken as fact. For instance, the head of the Archaeology Dept at Hebrew University said that zero physical evidence has been found to support the Exodus myth. Zero evidence. That's rather a big thing in Israel because Exodus is the justification for the existence of the Jewish state.

IIRC all copies of Hebrew Scripture were lost during the Babylonian Captivity (if any) and, after the return to Israel, re-created by a priest re-writing the entirety FROM MEMORY. Was his memory perfect? How can we tell?

Muddled New Testament gospels similarly are not corroborated by other evidence, and were written long after the alleged events. The nativity story does not match known history -- bad timeline, no census, no slaughter of newborns, none of that. Events in Jerusalem are not recorded elsewhere. The Crucifixion story doesn't accord with Roman practice. It's all just not trustworthy.

Thus my question: Which of the rewrites of oral tradition (folktales) are historically accurate? How can you tell?

Not that it matters. People believe what they want.
_____

(*) Hebrew Scripture was revised and edited by the imperial wizards er I mean church leaders of the Roman Empire's new state religion. Their Old Testament follows rather a different story arc than the original.

 

[Tryharder62]

Hebrew Scripture (*) wasn't written in any form of Greek. The folktales circulated in oral tradition long before writing. People tend to make stuff up when they tell tales. Folktales unsupported by facts shouldn't be taken as fact. For instance, the head of the Archaeology Dept at Hebrew University said that zero physical evidence has been found to support the Exodus myth. Zero evidence. That's rather a big thing in Israel because Exodus is the justification for the existence of the Jewish state.

IIRC all copies of Hebrew Scripture were lost during the Babylonian Captivity (if any) and, after the return to Israel, re-created by a priest re-writing the entirety FROM MEMORY. Was his memory perfect? How can we tell?

Muddled New Testament gospels similarly are not corroborated by other evidence, and were written long after the alleged events. The nativity story does not match known history -- bad timeline, no census, no slaughter of newborns, none of that. Events in Jerusalem are not recorded elsewhere. The Crucifixion story doesn't accord with Roman practice. It's all just not trustworthy.

Thus my question: Which of the rewrites of oral tradition (folktales) are historically accurate? How can you tell?

Not that it matters. People believe what they want.
_____

(*) Hebrew Scripture was revised and edited by the imperial wizards er I mean church leaders of the Roman Empire's new state religion. Their Old Testament follows rather a different story arc than the original.

Christians believe God divinely influenced the human authors of the Scriptures in such a way that what they wrote was the very Word of God. In the context of the Scriptures, the word “inspiration” simply means “God-breathed.” Inspiration means the Bible truly is the Word of God and makes the Bible unique among all other books.

So you would not be satisfied the answer is in the Bible. Yep, you got to have faith!

 

[phrodeau]

Christians believe God divinely influenced the human authors of the Scriptures in such a way that what they wrote was the very Word of God. In the context of the Scriptures, the word “inspiration” simply means “God-breathed.” Inspiration means the Bible truly is the Word of God and makes the Bible unique among all other books.

So you would not be satisfied the answer is in the Bible. Yep, you got to have faith!

The authors of the Bible had no free will, then.

 

[psiberzerker]

Hebrew Scripture (*) wasn't written in any form of Greek.

The Revelation was.

 

[psiberzerker]

You realize that there are DOZENS of non biblical secular historical writings regarding Christ from His day and shortly afterward right from Roman historians and others?

Name them. Link them if you can.

Not to mention... the Church writings, the apochriphical writings, the agnostic writings, the synoptic gospels...right?

I read all of them. Except the "Agnostic" writings. You mean the Gnostic writings. (I read those too.) The Agnostics claim there is no proof.

 

[Tryharder62]

The authors of the Bible had no free will, then.

My opinion is they had a choice but when God inspires you the choice is easy.

 

[RocketLauncher]

My opinion is they had a choice but when God inspires you the choice is easy.

Hey pretty lady! *waving enthusiastically*

Seems God/Maud has several inspirational convos with xfrodobagginsx in his head.

 

[psiberzerker]

My opinion is they had a choice but when God inspires you the choice is easy.

My opinion is that man is fallible, and can fuck up anything. You want the scriptures to back that up?

 

[Hypoxia]

Hebrew Scripture (*) wasn't written in any form of Greek.

The Revelation was.

The canonical Apocalypse aka Revelation of St John of Patmos is not one of the 24 books of Hebrew Scripture aka Tanakh.

Around when Xianity was made the state religion of the Roman Empire, all sorts of Apocalypses floated about. Cf apocrypha and pseudoepigrapha. The council of Imperial Wizards er I mean church fathers had to choose one or risk losing audience.

It's like the Rolling Stones 1969 USA tour. Small high-quality tape decks were newly available. Many Stones concerts were illicitly taped; bootleg records proliferated. I love my copy of LiveR Than You'll Ever Be; it really captures the audience spirit. Facing the flood of bootlegs, the Stones released an 'official' tour album, Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out. Cleaner and slicker than the bootlegs, kinda wimpy, but it was official.

That's where the canonical Apocalypse is, the 'official' version meant to swamp-out the bootlegs, the apocrypha, the wildly popular competing doomsday fantasies. Cleaner and slicker than the bootlegs, kinda wimpy, but it's official.

 

[Tryharder62]

Hey pretty lady! *waving enthusiastically*

Seems God/Maud has several inspirational convos with xfrodobagginsx in his head.

*waves back exuberantly* I can only keep track of the voices in my head.

My opinion is that man is fallible, and can fuck up anything. You want the scriptures to back that up?

it is hard describe to someone who hasn't had the Lord get ahold of them what it is like. It is like the Mississippi squirrel on steroids. I have posted this before so click at your own risk. It makes me chuckle..
https://youtu.be/K16fG1sDagU

But by all means quote scripture.

 

[Hypoxia]

Christians believe God divinely influenced the human authors of the Scriptures in such a way that what they wrote was the very Word of God. In the context of the Scriptures, the word “inspiration” simply means “God-breathed.” Inspiration means the Bible truly is the Word of God and makes the Bible unique among all other books.

So you would not be satisfied the answer is in the Bible. Yep, you got to have faith!

My dog had faith in me. I'm hopefully more than a dog.

There is no "The Bible," no one set of texts all Xians consider canonical. Early Xians saw all writings of Saul/Paul, the torturer and death-squad leader who founded Xianity to deflect the Jewish Revolt, to be one book, and as commentary, not canon. Some still do. Orthodoxoi, Catholics, and various Protestants read very different bibles with different contents. Compare the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation with a Catholic Douay-Confraternity edition. Don't even mention the Book of Mormon.

Translation can be tricky. Concepts in one language may not exist in others. Preparing a bible for a Mexican Indian group, the closest the bible society could come to 'prayer' was "wagging one's butt before the Lord." Woof. And many different ancient Hebrew words were rendered as 'witch': jugglers, herb doctors, mages. A famous passage should read, "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live." Those dumping toxic waste must be put to death, hey?

Biblical texts seen as canonical by Xianity's many sects contain stuff that doesn't fit observed reality. Which should I believe, inspiration or reality?

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

The authors of the Bible had no free will, then.

They were moved by the Holy Spirit as they were writing, it was God speaking through them.

2Pe 1:21 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. {in old time: or, at any time}

 

[phrodeau]

They were moved by the Holy Spirit as they were writing, it was God speaking through them.

2Pe 1:21 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. {in old time: or, at any time}

That's what I said. Puppets.

 

[Tryharder62]

My dog had faith in me. I'm hopefully more than a dog.

There is no "The Bible," no one set of texts all Xians consider canonical. Early Xians saw all writings of Saul/Paul, the torturer and death-squad leader who founded Xianity to deflect the Jewish Revolt, to be one book, and as commentary, not canon. Some still do. Orthodoxoi, Catholics, and various Protestants read very different bibles with different contents. Compare the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation with a Catholic Douay-Confraternity edition. Don't even mention the Book of Mormon.

Translation can be tricky. Concepts in one language may not exist in others. Preparing a bible for a Mexican Indian group, the closest the bible society could come to 'prayer' was "wagging one's butt before the Lord." Woof. And many different ancient Hebrew words were rendered as 'witch': jugglers, herb doctors, mages. A famous passage should read, "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live." Those dumping toxic waste must be put to death, hey?

Biblical texts seen as canonical by Xianity's many sects contain stuff that doesn't fit observed reality. Which should I believe, inspiration or reality?

My cat has faith in me only when I am doing his bidding. Otherwise the attitude emerges.

You are talking translation issues not scripture issues.

Sometimes you have to make your decision as to what you believe. Some people find God in nature, in the faces of children, in the helping of others. It doesn't all come down to scripture. For me it was the peace I felt that convinced me.

Philippians 4:7 English Standard Version (ESV)
7 And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

I need to see dog pictures

 

[Tryharder62]

That's what I said. Puppets.

Hmmmm don't think you've been "moved".

 

[Libsam]

Christians believe God divinely influenced the human authors of the Scriptures in such a way that what they wrote was the very Word of God. In the context of the Scriptures, the word “inspiration” simply means “God-breathed.” Inspiration means the Bible truly is the Word of God and makes the Bible unique among all other books.

So you would not be satisfied the answer is in the Bible. Yep, you got to have faith!

I believe in Divine Inspiration, too, and I follow what you are saying.

To put it in another way:
The modern Christian Bible has been been perfected over many years by men who dedicated their lives to getting the message across. There's layer upon layer of metaphor that leads people to spiritual knowledge (or Self, or Spirit, or God, whatever you want to call it).

 

[Hypoxia]

The modern Christian Bible...

Which one?

 

[StuartPidd]

Which one?

https://thumb-p6.xhcdn.com/000/198/584/336_1000.gif

Mandy Flores

 

[RocketLauncher]

Sometimes you have to make your decision as to what you believe. Some people find God in nature, in the faces of children, in the helping of others. It doesn't all come down to scripture. For me it was the peace I felt that convinced me.

Agreed, but I don't call it God I call it that warm fuzzy feeling from being selfless.

Hmmmm don't think you've been "moved".

I moved on the weekend. Glad I had two strapping, young stepsons to help me.

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

That's what I said. Puppets.

No, they weren't puppets, they were servants who WILLINGLY submitted to God and then He directed them.