What is sin?

[Neo]

That's awfully big of ourselves, no? To think that our human global consciousness is universal in importance and scale? The height of arrogance, that. No, scratch that, the height of arrogance would be to place the importance of one's own consciousness on a universal scale. But doing so with one's species is still up there.

But you're missing the point, it's our perspective that's changing, and not so much the universe.

When we become aware of this unity then unity happens.

The universe does also change I suppose, at least in some very minute way. And that's because another "part" has become aware of the "parcel". But for the most part, it's all about awareness.

 

[airclean33]

I did read it, If Hitler society itself found it morally acceptably for only the Aron nation to exists for the betterment of humanity and another society did not , whos ever moral code won the battle would make no difference because the moral code to both societies is simply a self evolved moral acceptance with no room for ultimate justice and truth life itself becomes meaningless Man and the universe are without ultimate significance.

who is to Judge the actions of Hitler or a saint ? a race that is guaranteed an ultimate death?, the concept of morality loses all meaning in a universe with out God.

To say that something is wrong because it is forbidding by God is perfictally understandable by anyone who believes in a law giving God ,

BUT:

to say something is wrong even though no God exists to forbid it is not understandable , the concept of obligation of morality is unintelligent . In other words, with out God (objectivisim) , the word morality remains for a time, but is void of meaning, and there for wars, murder, rape , even Love , compassion, goodness, ultimately cannot be judged in a world doomed to certain oblivion

WOW--I cannot find a thum in here? Or you would have 3 Brother.--airclean33-Gord.

 

[Hermann]

Do you think any of those "Holy books" could be the work of scam artists? How would you tell the difference between a book written for the purposes of gaining influence and power, and a book sincerely written by people about a God to the best of their ability?

Hi chansen:

Spin is not new. Actually, it was far more prevalent in the first century than it is in the twenty-first. It is very likely that the religious/political faction the Gospel writers belonged to put the spin of their faction into what they wrote. To regard the biblical Gospels as historically accurate documents and historical truth is, I think, a big mistake.

 

[Neo]

Hi chansen:

Spin is not new. Actually, it was far more prevalent in the first century than it is in the twenty-first. It is very likely that the religious/political faction the Gospel writers belonged to put the spin of their faction into what they wrote. To regard the biblical Gospels as historically accurate documents and historical truth is, I think, a big mistake.

I don't think it's a big secret that the authors of the Gospels were commissioned by Roman politicians. What does that say about "spin" within these books?

 

[Hermann]

Of the many factions that arose from the teachings of Jesus, the Pauline/Roman faction carried the most political clout and probably was the most ruthless. This was why it "succeeded."

 

[GordW]

I don't think it's a big secret that the authors of the Gospels were commissioned by Roman politicians. What does that say about "spin" within these books?

Can you actually provide back-up for that claim? Because I suspect many Biblical scholars would question it

 

[Hermann]

I can't answer for Neo, but once Constantine had made Roman Christianity into the state religion of his empire, it enjoyed official Roman support. But this happened during the fourth century, not before. Before the year 300, one could be executed for being a Christian. One-hundred years later, one could be executed for not being a Christian.

 

[Mendalla]

Can you actually provide back-up for that claim? Because I suspect many Biblical scholars would question it

It's a theory that I have heard floated before but I forget the name of the book. Hopefully Neo comes back with a cite.

 

[GordW]

I can't answer for Neo, but once Constantine had made Roman Christianity into the state religion of his empire, it enjoyed official Roman support. But this happened during the fourth century, not before. Before the year 300, one could be executed for being a Christian. One-hundred years later, one could be executed for not being a Christian.

HOwever it is generally accepted that the Gospels were written well before Constantine, while the Jesus movement was still pretty much underground.

The theory that Roman politicians commissioned the Gospels (as an official act as Roman politicians) seems unlikely. Almost certainly the communities from which the Gospels arose had patrons and those patrons might have been people of rank in Roman society, but that is a different thing to my mind.

 

[chansen]

I can't answer for Neo, but once Constantine had made Roman Christianity into the state religion of his empire, it enjoyed official Roman support. But this happened during the fourth century, not before. Before the year 300, one could be executed for being a Christian. One-hundred years later, one could be executed for not being a Christian.

I can just imagine the typical Roman in an outlying area, trying to figure out what he is supposed to believe today.

Christianity - winning hearts and minds through the message of Jesus Christ, or torture, since 312 CE.

 

[Hermann]

HOwever it is generally accepted that the Gospels were written well before Constantine, while the Jesus movement was still pretty much underground.

The theory that Roman politicians commissioned the Gospels (as an official act as Roman politicians) seems unlikely. Almost certainly the communities from which the Gospels arose had patrons and those patrons might have been people of rank in Roman society, but that is a different thing to my mind.

Yes, of course, the canonical Gospels were written well before Constantine. But that doesn't assure us that they weren't edited by later writers or copyists.

In 303, under Emperor Diocletain, Roman Christians were still persecuted. In 313, Constantine granted toleration to all Christians in his empire. In 325 the Council of Nicea, convened by Emperor Constantine, voted 217 to 3 in favour of the divinity of Jesus, which was subsequently made into official Roman Christian dogma. In 393, at the Council of Hippo, the New Testament that we know today was formalized, and became law at the Council of Cartage in 397. From then on, non-Christians were persecuted. Within a decade, the persecuted had became persecutors, and persecuted their opponents as ruthlessly as they themselves had been persecuted.

When the canonical Gospels were formalized, there were still many other gospels (biographies of Jesus) in existence, and many other Christian sects besides Pauline/Roman Christianity. Most of them were subsequently suppressed and went underground or disappeared completely. That Pauline/Roman Christianity turned out to be the winner is not really due to the spiritual power of its message, or to the power of the canonical gospels, but to the ruthlessness and political savvy of its supporters. And maybe a little bit of luck.

 

[GordW]

I am reasonably certain that had those in power chosen to exercise their power and force some editing there are parts still in that would have been taken out.....

Instead I suspect a less "offensive" interpretation was pushed forward

 

[Neo]

Can you actually provide back-up for that claim? Because I suspect many Biblical scholars would question it

I thought that even Biblical scholars agreed on this. Isn't this why the gospels are titled as "The Gospel According to John", etc?

Also see http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Bibles_of_Constantine

 

[Hermann]

I am reasonably certain that had those in power chosen to exercise their power and force some editing there are parts still in that would have been taken out.....

Instead I suspect a less "offensive" interpretation was pushed forward

Yes, Gord, less offensive to the gentiles. The Pauline/Roman faction "de-judaified" the Jesus movement to make it more palatable to a gentile Hellenistic-Roman audience. What originally was a Judaic movement was made into a Grecco-Roman religion, which became heavily politicised and (ab)used as a tool for imperialist expansion, first for the expansion of ancient Christian Rome, then for the expansion of the Holy Roman Empire under Charlemagne and subsequent Holy Roman Emperors, and finally for the expansion of the various European colonial powers, who conquered in order to spread Christianity as well as for their own imperialist gains, all contrary to the spirit of Jesus who, it seems, was against Roman or any other imperialism.

 

[Seeler]

I don't think it's a big secret that the authors of the Gospels were commissioned by Roman politicians. What does that say about "spin" within these books?

Commissioned by Roman politicians???? I've never heard this before. And, frankly, I don't believe it.
That isn't to say that the writers of the Gospels (the four we have in our Bibles today; and the many that didn't make the cut) didn't have their 'spin' or their agenda.
Usually they are very up-front about it. Luke begins by saying, " ... I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account to you ... so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed."
John waits to the conclusion to reveal his purpose. He admits picking and choosing what stories he will tell. "Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah ..."
Matthew, Mark, Thomas, and others no doubt also had their purposes, their bias. Living in the shadow of the mighty forces of the Roman Empire they were careful not to rile feathers but preferred to cast 'the Jews' (particularly the Jewish religious leaders - since they themselves were Jews) as the villians of the story.
Every writer has a 'spin'. This morning's local newspaper headlines have a spin. Even of the choice of stories and picture (kids playing in a wading pool at the park) has a 'spin'. The four stories chosen are all local - nothing about world news. Even the headline about Hurricane Arthur reads "Hurricane Arthur has New Brunswick in its sight". Careful reading of the article, plus checking the Weather Channel on TV indicates that although considerable damage is expected in the American Eastern Seaboard, the hurricane will pretty much have blown itself out by the time it hits NB."
Spin happens. The Gospels commissioned by Roman. No.

 

[Waterfall]

I don't think it's a big secret that the authors of the Gospels were commissioned by Roman politicians. What does that say about "spin" within these books?

We don't really know who some of the authors were do we? We do know that there were many books brought together to form the Bible. So obviously we are going to have differing opinions within the Bible.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have been dated from anywhere between 250BC to 68AD.

 

[revjohn]

I don't think it's a big secret that the authors of the Gospels were commissioned by Roman politicians.

It is certainly no secret that this is routinely alleged and accepted as given. Any proof that the allegation is actually fact appears to be secret.

That said, The Gospel According to Luke and the book of Acts are thought to be written by the same author and the dedication raises some interesting ideas.

Both books are written for Theophilus and there is some debate as to who Theophilus is.

Theophilus (or as written in the text) Theophilos can be a proper name or it can be an honourary title. As an honourary title (it means friend of God) it was used by both Romans and Jews of the era in which the books were written.

The Coptic Church believes Theophilus to be an Alexandrian Jew.

Because of the qualifier "excellent" there is a belief held by some that the books were addressed to a Roman Politician (which may or may not mean the politician commissioned the works). One particular candidate is Titus Flavius Sabinus and the use of Theophilus is an encoded dedication that would not betray Titus to the authorities of the time which were not sympathetic to Christianity.

Because the term is honourary and means friend of God there is a line of thought that it is written for all friends of God (ie., all believers).

There is growing opinion that the books were written for Theophilus ben Ananus then High Priest of the Jerusalem Temple. Theophilus would have been the son of Annas and brother in law to Caiaphas.

There is also a theory that it was written for Paul's lawyer during Paul's lengthy trial in Rome.

There are no other dedications of books to individuals and so very little discussion about the commissioning the books outside of the various communities of faith which collected and preserved them.

What does that say about "spin" within these books?

If we accept that the authors of the Gospels were commissioned by Roman Politicians it would be safe to say that they would have a pro-Roman bias.

Of course, none of the books has a sufficiently Roman bias that would prevent them from being deemed seditious. Rome was polytheistic the Gospels are not. Rome was the ultimate power in the world and the Gospels scoff at that idea.

So the spin is hardly one towards making Rome happy

One might also ask what "spin" folk are hoping for when they claim the Gospels are Roman Commissions.

 

[Waterfall]

Probably most of the "spin" comes from the interpretation of the Bible that manifests itself in false doctrines?

 

[revsdd]

Would you be willing to extend your definition of sin to include anything that works to build a barrier between us and our neighbour?

Although the extension you requested and asked for was given, which perhaps provides greater clarity to what Richard posted, I would suggest that it was unnecessary in the sense that if I build a barrier between me and my neighbour I AM in fact building a barrier between me and God.

 

[Waterfall]

Although the extension you requested and asked for was given, which perhaps provides greater clarity to what Richard posted, I would suggest that it was unnecessary in the sense that if I build a barrier between me and my neighbour I AM in fact building a barrier between me and God.

Does that mean that an athiest can be close to God without realizing it?