FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Most Jews do have not read the Torah completly.





silkmesh
Most Jews do have not read the Torah completly.

If you are Jewish and do not have a Torah, and have not read it from cover to cover there is

a Torah on line: http://webferret.search.com/click?wf,online+torah,,bible.ort.org%2Fbooks%2Ftorahd5.asp,,altavista

Then it maybe a good idea to read some Torah Contadictions http://webferret.search.com/click?wf,torah+contradiction,,www.daat.ac.il%2Fdaat%2Fenglish%2Feducation%2Fevolution-1.htm,,aolthey seem to be fair.

I have included this article as I am fed up with so called people with so called religious understanding making remarks when they have not thoroughly read their religious book/s

Hope that this is of some help

Regards

Bob


[url][/url]
benjad
this is not a phoneme that is exclusive to Judeaism. Most christians fail to completely read and understand their holy books, the simply fall prey to whomever the roving minister is, and what they believe.

Further when you go to consider the gnostic gospels, you see that there is much to the story that your average 'bible beater' is missing.
Zampano
benjad wrote:
this is not a phoneme that is exclusive to Judeaism. Most christians fail to completely read and understand their holy books, the simply fall prey to whomever the roving minister is, and what they believe.

Further when you go to consider the gnostic gospels, you see that there is much to the story that your average 'bible beater' is missing.

That's all true to be fair, but I would like to point out that the books in the Gnostic Gospels were written several centuries after Christ, by people unrelated to the conflict then.
HereticMonkey
Also, there is a lot in the Gnostic Gospels that isn't considered canon by most churches, and even contradicts parts of the rest of The Bible (even worse than normal)...

HM
HoboPelican
silkmesh wrote:
Most Jews do have not read the Torah completly.
....
Then it maybe a good idea to read some Torah Contadictions they seem to be fair.

I have included this article as I am fed up with so called people with so called religious understanding making remarks when they have not thoroughly read their religious book/s


Is there some reason to single out Jews? Is there a fundamental difference in the ratio of christians, muslims or whatever in regards to reading their religious texts? Is reading a text going to make them scholars? I know people who have read the Bible front to back, but still can't agree with each other as to what it is really saying.


By the way, it can be really annoying when people post long links that scroll off the page. Here is a way to use the quote tags to shorten up the link.

instead of
Code:
[url]http://www.frihost.com[/url]

that looks like this
http://www.frihost.com


Try this
Code:
[url=http://www.frihost.com]Frihost[/url]

which looks like this
Frihost
silkmesh
Sorry noted.

There are three threads, Jews, Christians and Muslims. Each one addresses the religion the same way.

Thanks for your advise

Regards
HereticMonkey
Seriously confuzzled...How do you mean "the same religion"? Shouldn't it be all three religions? And I'm still curious as to why Buddhism and Hinduism were left out...

HM
silkmesh
If we included every religion we would have

Aprox. 60 or so

We geared to Middle eastern religion on this thread at the moment.

Please submit something interesting with insight on the ones you mention and of course we would be to happy to comment about that

Regards
HereticMonkey
Dude: Lighten up the attitude a bit. For someone that preaches open-mindedness, you seem closed...

HM
silkmesh
I happy, no problemo...

Just want to see some thing on Buddhism and Hinduism need a bit of input in that area and you seem to be the dude of the dudes who will spill the beans at the top of the can about Buddhism and Hinduism. It seems to be a subject near to your heart.

I would like to hear about any religion as I am very open hearted as well as open minded.

I am very interested in Native American Indians religion and any odd beliefs.

Okay Man, got the drift?

Thanks for your input

Regards
HereticMonkey
Nope...just tired of the attacks on a few specific religions by someone who claims to be above it all...

HM
silkmesh
What claim?

Never made a such a claim!

I am just concerned about enviromental brainwashing and bringing my findings on such issues to this forum, to see what people think, to get reaction.

So far it would seem most people do not want to admit they have been brainwashed. Thats the world I live in and I expect the sheep will always be cannon fodder for those that want to control them.

I got my reactions and find that its a sad deluded World.


Best Regards
robohobo
I'm embarrassed to be associated with this forum on so many levels.
benjad
To bring this back on track...
Confused

Zampano wrote:

That's all true to be fair, but I would like to point out that the books in the Gnostic Gospels were written several centuries after Christ, by people unrelated to the conflict then.


So were the gospels in the current bible written several centuries after the actual events took place. They continued as oral stories for quite a few generations, and i believe that the earliest written copies we have found are around 500ce. There are some serious questions about why only the gospels of the men were included... and it becomes more clear every day that this was intentional by the religions later leaders.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Also, there is a lot in the Gnostic Gospels that isn't considered canon by most churches, and even contradicts parts of the rest of The Bible (even worse than normal)...


Yup, someone somewhere choose what they thought was the most representative, and threw out the rest. Bad editing, imho.



My info on other world religions consists only of one world mythology class, so is rather limited.


But, there is one thing I really love about Judeaism. That is that they maintain their holy text in it's original language. Translation produces a loss of meaning, and induces much more editorial messsage changing. By leaving it in it's original language, the reader is challenged to place themselves in that place and time, and understand and question what really happened.



Does this get us back on track?
silkmesh
In reference to the selection of gospel's

You may wish to read:

http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=164

Contintine is thought to be the culprit?

Regards
HereticMonkey
Close; it was the Council of Nicea. Constantine got tired of infighting between sects, so he called a council, told them to iron out the issues, and left them alone. He had no power over what was chosen, and all he did past that was to allow Christianity as long as they weren't too disruptive.

The Council of Nicea decided to keep most of the various gospels, but due to the constraint placed on them by Constantine, had to find a way to deal with all of the competing issues. The best way to do that was to simply get rid of texts that were hard to read or contradicted too many other books.

If it helps,
HM
silkmesh
This is very interesting account of how the original christian faith's were adapted to suit the Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire is still very much alive, ruled by the Emperor, the Pope. (Joke)

Quote:
REEVALUATING CONSTANTINE

Despite his supervisory role in the Council of Nicea andhis self-appointed role as bishop, Constantine postponed his baptism until 337, when he was on his deathbed.

Baptized or not, he played a major role in shaping traditional Christianity. While Eusebius looked approvingly on Constantine’s actions as a demonstration of true Christianity, more reflection on his part might have produced a different perspective.

Reevaluating both Christian and pagan sources of that time, we might rather conclude that Constantine used Christianity to serve his own purpose of unifying and controlling his empire. The early New Testament church in apostolic times existed apart from the empire. Constantine made his Roman Christian church hostage to the state so that now it would serve the needs of emperor and empire.

By the end of the fourth century, that church was modeled on the political structures of the Roman Empire it served, and not on the Bible. It assumed the power of the state to establish “right thinking” on the part of its members (see “Orthodoxy: Just Another Heresy?” in this issue). Orthodoxy became the order of the day. While pagans and diverse Christian groups continued to coexist and to shape ecclesiastical debates into the fifth century, a powerful organization had been created that would control and expunge from the empire any religious elements deemed unorthodox.

By
PETER NATHAN


When you think about it in depth, most of the present Christian Religions have followed the Catholic Church opinion in which gospels should be within their Bible's.



Best Regards
HoboPelican
silkmesh wrote:
...
Despite his supervisory role in the Council of Nicea andhis self-appointed role as bishop, Constantine postponed his baptism until 337, when he was on his deathbed.


That first paragraph jogged an old memory. It makes it sound like it was suspicious thing to do when actually at the time it was very common to wait until later in life to get baptized. I have to rely on wikipedia, since I don't feel like typing in the text from my personal books.
Quote:
Eusebius reports that Constantine was baptized only shortly before his death in 337. With this, he followed one custom at the time which postponed baptism till old age or death[7].


By the way, who is Peter Nathan? Qualifications? Just curious since he seems to be pushing an agenda.
silkmesh
Peter Nathan

He is a research author for Vision a electronic publication that would seem to be a reliable publication

He has used 3 publications by known historians as the base of what seems to be fair historic accounts.

Michael Grant, The Emperor Constantine (1993).
Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians (1986).
Samuel N.C. Lieu and Dominic Montserrat (editors), From Constantine to Julian: Pagan and Byzantine Views (1996).

The articles can be found at http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=164

I hope I have been of some help.

Thanks for the interest.

Best Regards
HoboPelican
silkmesh wrote:
Peter Nathan

He is a research author for Vision a electronic publication that would seem to be a reliable publication

....


Yeah, I found that site. It is the publication for the Church of God out of California. Not sure how reliable they are, but Nathan seemed to ignore that waiting to get baptized was common then, making it seem Constantine may have been playing political games. That may or may not be true, but slanting the facts like that makes him suspect in my mind.
silkmesh
I will check other accounts, you maybe right.

Best regards
silkmesh
Yes I think you are very right

Wikepia states

Quote:
Constantine is also remembered for the Council of Nicaea in 325; these actions are considered major factors in the spreading of the Christian religion. His reputation as the "first Christian Emperor" has been promulgated by historians from Lactantius and Eusebius of Caesarea to the present day, although there has been debate over the veracity of his faith. This debate stems from his continued support for pagan deities


I will not look any further as I expect differing accounts about the babtism, but I feel Nathan research is mostly okay on the history.

Thanks for your input and knowlege about Constantine

Best wishes and regards



Regards
benjad
My local paper did a great story along these same lines today...

The war over religions

Educators battle separation of church and state but understanding world conflicts may suffer
http://www.delmarvanow.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070317/NEWS01/703170314

Some quotables...

Quote:
Prothero, chairman of the religion department at Boston University, points out that only 10 percent of American teenagers can name all five major world religions -- Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism -- while 15 percent cannot name any. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe that the Bible holds the answers to all or most of life's basic questions, yet only half of American adults can name even one of the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.



scary!
Related topics
Two suggestions
Nick Hornby.
The degradation of language in general.
the.shogunate.v1:infection
AJAX web coding
Are atheists more likely to be fellons?
Dan Brown
Qur'an attacks validity of Bible
Book you hated the most
For Religionists: Which Holy Book Do You Subscribe To?
The Qur'an
Have you read the Bible?
satanic atheism
A challenge to creationists - YECs, MECs and OECs
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.