[secateurs]

for someone who wants to study these things without any prejudice, would take a lot dedication and time.

I doubt it is even possible to study the Bible (or anything else) without some degree of prejudice!

[Pentaxor]

I doubt it is even possible to study the Bible (or anything else) without some degree of prejudice!

that's the thing that makes us human.

[clmonk]

Pentaxor wrote: one thing I have noticed during my limited study of world religions is that each religion contains certain inadequacy of explaining things and would rather fall upon the reader for personal opinion on what to follow. I somehow laugh at what is being taught by certain leaders of faith is somehow suggests or favor their own belief. not to negate nor connect/intertwine with others. personally, no religion is perfect and the very teachings of what is included in the scriptures can be used to contradict the other if one's opinion is enforced.

Care to provide an example or two so we can see what you mean by this? My preference would be that you do so out of the Bible since it is the reference I know better than those of other world religions.

[shooz]

And god shuffled his feet.

[Pentaxor]

Pentaxor wrote: one thing I have noticed during my limited study of world religions is that each religion contains certain inadequacy of explaining things and would rather fall upon the reader for personal opinion on what to follow. I somehow laugh at what is being taught by certain leaders of faith is somehow suggests or favor their own belief. not to negate nor connect/intertwine with others. personally, no religion is perfect and the very teachings of what is included in the scriptures can be used to contradict the other if one's opinion is enforced.

Care to provide an example or two so we can see what you mean by this? My preference would be that you do so out of the Bible since it is the reference I know better than those of other world religions.

what I meant by study of world religions is the subject perse. this does not limit the general religions such as Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confusianism, Zoroastriasm, Islamic, etc... but also includes sectarian differences of the same faith.

one of which is the neverending debate of divinity of Jesus. whether such should be taken with a literal meaning or figurative kind, or spiritual enlightenment, or do as your heart pleases in some other people's belief. the difference in religious practice is also another subject. one in particular is baptismal practice. baptism by the catholic church (christianity) are performed to toddlers while other sects of the christian faith would most likely oppose to the idea and perform baptism at the ripe age when a child is aware enough of such acceptance to one's faith.

the Islam religion for example have their differences between the followers of Ali or Shia Muslims and followers of Muhammed's hadith (orthodox teachings). due to the political complication and the debate on the right of succession, this also affected the practices of Islam faith. certain differences would question the divine aspect of the imams or perfection.

[les3547]

Pentaxor wrote: one thing I have noticed during my limited study of world religions is that each religion contains certain inadequacy of explaining things and would rather fall upon the reader for personal opinion on what to follow. I somehow laugh at what is being taught by certain leaders of faith is somehow suggests or favor their own belief. not to negate nor connect/intertwine with others. personally, no religion is perfect and the very teachings of what is included in the scriptures can be used to contradict the other if one's opinion is enforced.

Care to provide an example or two so we can see what you mean by this? My preference would be that you do so out of the Bible since it is the reference I know better than those of other world religions.

I can't tell what are you asking Pentaxor to clarify. That religions only go so far with explanations, and then let the reader interpret for himself? That scripture (or anything) is often interpreted in ways that reinforce one's belief?

[ihasa]

Pentaxor wrote: one thing I have noticed during my limited study of world religions is that each religion contains certain inadequacy of explaining things and would rather fall upon the reader for personal opinion on what to follow. I somehow laugh at what is being taught by certain leaders of faith is somehow suggests or favor their own belief. not to negate nor connect/intertwine with others. personally, no religion is perfect and the very teachings of what is included in the scriptures can be used to contradict the other if one's opinion is enforced.

Care to provide an example or two so we can see what you mean by this? My preference would be that you do so out of the Bible since it is the reference I know better than those of other world religions.

Eduard Schweizer feels that a large part of Matthew's variance from Luke is attributed to Matthew not approving of asceticism as a way into heaven in and of itself. Hence Matthew changes what Luke has as ordinary physical deprivations into spiritual ones—by changing poor into poor in spirit, and hungry into hunger . . . after righteousness.

Which version of the beatitudes does your preacher use? Does he emphasise 'blessed are the poor in spirit' or does he go with 'blessed are the poor' and encourage the congregation to divest themselves of their private wealth- which most 'Christians' would find unpalatable?

The bible isn't just full of stuff which is open to different interpretations... in the gospels, we have actual alternative texts to dip into to support our own values!

[clmonk]

ihasa wrote: Which version of the beatitudes does your preacher use? Does he emphasise 'blessed are the poor in spirit' or does he go with 'blessed are the poor'
My return question would be, does it have to be an "either/or" decision? Although the topics are certainly similar, it would obviously be possible that Matthew was writing about one speaking engagement , and Luke could have been writing about a totally different speaking engagement with a totally different audience. Jesus COULD HAVE announced blessings on both the poor and the poor in spirit. On the other hand, Matthew records as an eye-witness whereas Luke is recording not as an eye-witness but based on interviews with eye-witnesses. In their day, the poor were often poor in spirit because they had been told by their religious leaders that they were poor and suffered due to their sin. Jesus, owever, breaks into the scene with a radical message--it wasn't their lack of faith that resulted in their being poor. They were instead going to be greatly blessed despite being poor! It was these kinds of radically different teachigns that resulted in the movers and shakers (read Pharisees and Saducees) being totally disgusted with Jesus.

[ihasa]

it would obviously be possible that Matthew was writing about one speaking engagement , and Luke could have been writing about a totally different speaking engagement with a totally different audience. Jesus COULD HAVE announced blessings on both the poor and the poor in spirit. On the other hand, Matthew records as an eye-witness whereas Luke is recording not as an eye-witness but based on interviews with eye-witnesses. In their day, the poor were often poor in spirit because they had been told by their religious leaders that they were poor and suffered due to their sin. Jesus, owever, breaks into the scene with a radical message--it wasn't their lack of faith that resulted in their being poor. They were instead going to be greatly blessed despite being poor! It was these kinds of radically different teachigns that resulted in the movers and shakers (read Pharisees and Saducees) being totally disgusted with Jesus.

The Sermon on the Mount is usually presented as one event, rather than a summary of various 'speaking engagements' (lol, Jesus on the 'after dinner' circuit)... but what you say could be true, yes. Who knows! It just strikes me that it is more likely that 'personal interpretation' (or reinterpretation in accordance with the intended audience) in the second (third?) hand accounts is a more likely culprit for discrepancies.

[GeneV]

The Sermon on the Mount is usually presented as one event, rather than a summary of various 'speaking engagements' (lol, Jesus on the 'after dinner' circuit)... but what you say could be true, yes. Who knows! It just strikes me that it is more likely that 'personal interpretation' (or reinterpretation in accordance with the intended audience) in the second (third?) hand accounts is a more likely culprit for discrepancies.

It strikes me that a lot of mental gymnastics and story creation go into avoiding the treatment of the Bible as what it is--the accounts and recollections of various authors. The two stories of Judas' death also come to mind along with the tortured story put together to attempt to make both correct.

[Green_Manelishi]

I am though a history buff of sorts and The Bible is just that too me, a book of historical events which may or may not have occurred; that's the funny thing about history, you don't truly know unless you've experienced it yourself in the making otherwise all knowledge is third party hand offs.

Funny though the number of historical events, written about in books other than the Bible, that are accepted as truth despite noone currently alive ever witnessing.

[GeneV]

Funny though the number of historical events, written about in books other than the Bible, that are accepted as truth despite noone currently alive ever witnessing.

Historical writings is not accepted the way the Bible is by many. There can be multiple accounts and historians can consider all sources and form an opinion. People tend to take the bible as the only account.

[Green_Manelishi]

Historical writings is not accepted the way the Bible is by many. There can be multiple accounts and historians can consider all sources and form an opinion. People tend to take the bible as the only account.

The only account of what events?

[GeneV]

The only account of what events?

The only valid account of the events set out in the Bible.

[Green_Manelishi]

The only valid account of the events set out in the Bible.

Such as?