165 replies to this topic

[Genghis_Khan]

If you're referring to Biblical prophets, they're definitely just humans.
Not sure what you mean by "grad" ...

If you mean "grand", well, just look at what happened to Jeremiah, to Elijah, to Jonah ...
Really not so grand, eh?

Sorry, mispell it.. heheh
"great"
Atleast you agree with me that there were just human. I think all prophet were just human, unless there is really some superhuman with superpower or ESP like human but how can we prove it?

Edited by Genghis_Khan, 05 May 2006 - 12:29 AM.

[Liang Jieming]

Yes, it's a translation issue rather than an accuracy issue. Though arguably, some ask, what's the difference?

I'm following a little on your other thread - but military isn't really my thing. You mentioned that TL recommended you a website that gave a translation on these verses? What's the website?

For myself, I try to go into the original greek and hebrew. This may help further your research, if you don't already have this website address already.

By verse, here Click the option, "show strongs numbers" The number square-bracketed are the greek; normal brackets, hebrew. If you're checking OT, go for the hebrew; NT, go for the greek.

Once you got the number, go here

Oh cooool! Ok, I've been depending on an american guy on a catapult forum who is into bible translation comparisons to check this for me. Now I can do it myself. Thanks Elisha.

Further on the issue of catapults, in the ancient hebrew haggarah, it is written that the Devil threw Abraham into the fire with a catapult. This account is believed to have been written after the invention of the torsion catapult by the Greco-Romans but set in what must have been in the biblical era of Abraham before the invention of catapults. The actual context is undoubtably a large catapult because the Devil apparently tested it by firing large stones into the fire with it, to make sure it would work before putting Abraham onto the catapult. Again, we see the influence of contemporary events woven into what is perceived as the "historical truth". Fascinating stuff I tell you. Incidently, this same account exists in the Islamic "Stories of the Prophets".

Edited by Liang Jieming, 05 May 2006 - 01:06 AM.

[Liang Jieming]

Edited by Liang Jieming, 05 May 2006 - 01:22 AM.

[Liang Jieming]

Grrr.... took me two tries before figuring out that the square brackets are Hebrew and the normal curved brackets are Greek strong words.

2Ch 26:15 And he made [06213] (8799) in Jerusalem [03389] engines [02810], invented [04284] by cunning men [02803] (8802), to be on the towers [04026] and upon the bulwarks [06438], to shoot [03384] (8800) arrows [02671] and great [01419] stones [068] withal. And his name [08034] spread [03318] (8799) far abroad [07350]; for he was marvellously [06381] (8689) helped [05826] (8736), till [03588] he was strong [02388] (8804).

[02810] gives chishshabown {khish-shaw-bone'} or device, invention.



This is what I have from "Greek and Roman Artillery: Historical development", E.W. Marsden, Oxford University Press (Clarendon Press), 1999:

In the original text by Ezekiel written ca. 580 B.C., the word used was “karim” which meant battering ram, but this was mistranslated by the Greek chronicler in 250 B.C. to the word "belostaseiz" or "ballistarium" in Latin, meaning "artillery platform".

Edited by Liang Jieming, 05 May 2006 - 01:21 AM.

[Elisha]

Grrr.... took me two tries before figuring out that the square brackets are Hebrew and the normal curved brackets are Greek strong words.

Oops! Sorry, my bad.

edit: I went back to check. I do believe that the square-bracketed referred to the original language that the text was written in. So in the NT, the square-bracketed numbers referred to the greek and hebrew in the OT. As you can probably tell, I'm more familiar with NT.

Further on the issue of catapults, in the ancient hebrew haggarah, it is written that the Devil threw Abraham into the fire with a catapult. This account is believed to have been written after the invention of the torsion catapult by the Greco-Romans but set in what must have been in the biblical era of Abraham before the invention of catapults. The actual context is undoubtably a large catapult because the Devil apparently tested it by firing large stones into the fire with it, to make sure it would work before putting Abraham onto the catapult. Again, we see the influence of contemporary events woven into what is perceived as the "historical truth". Fascinating stuff I tell you. Incidently, this same account exists in the Islamic "Stories of the Prophets".

What is the "ancient hebrew haggarah"? An account found where?

It's kinda of funny the devil putting Abarham into the catapult. I can assure you that story is not in the bible. Maybe some other accounts. Wonder if they had satire in those days?

Edited by Elisha, 05 May 2006 - 01:39 AM.

[Elisha]

In the original text by Ezekiel written ca. 580 B.C., the word used was “karim” which meant battering ram, but this was mistranslated by the Greek chronicler in 250 B.C. to the word "belostaseiz" or "ballistarium" in Latin, meaning "artillery platform".

What do you mean by "in the original text by Ezekiel"? Something like the dead sea scrolls?

[Liang Jieming]

I'm following a little on your other thread - but military isn't really my thing.

I'm honoured M'lady.

We take this to the catapult thread? I don't want to clutter up this thread which has nothing to do with catapults in the bible.

http://www.chinahist...dpost&p=4808737

Edited by Liang Jieming, 05 May 2006 - 01:51 AM.

[lanjingling]

I think the point that you brought out about "religion" meaning "link" is quite interesting. What is the actual latin word? Do you have a site I can go to? I wonder if it influenced how religion was viewed during the middle ages. I believe the bible was in latin then. (The old testament was originally written in hebrew; and the new testament in greek) Hmm..okay, getting a little off topic.

Yes, you're right. In chinese, it's "jiao". It reminds me of how Confucius would travel from court to court and teach - and similarly for the other masters. Though this would be more in reference to ideology and philosophy originally. However, this relationship was 'forgotten' later on in the development and spread of daoism and buddhism, when it seemed to take on mystic elements.

As for the etymology of the word religion, wikipedia provides differents explanations; the ones i've heard about were re-ligare (connect again ) & res-legare (concerning a gathering), enceforth "link"; they're also mentioning re-lego ,or read again or treat carefully, wich i had never heard of before.
Anyway i think that the etymology merely concerns the roman religion ,not the Christian, because the Christians merely borrowed the latin word for their own religion , without concern about what the roman religion was (the same way they used some pagan temples as churches , it's just a convenient cultural syncretism). But it could be interesting to check out what Christians philosophers , at the time that the latin word have been included in the christian vocabulary, were thinking about,like Isidore of Seville in his etymologies
In hebrew, the word for religion is something like 'dat', means the law, & come from Est.3,8 & Dt.33,2 .
In Thai (mainly Theravada Buddhist country), it's saatsanaa, a word coming from the Sanskrit shaas :to rule, teach + ana (suffix).
We can see that in Chinese,Thai,Sanskrit & Hebrew, the idea of an authority (the law, or a teacher) is always there , not in Latin , but if we accept the "link" etymology , then it seems that there is always an concern about social order (submission to an authority or social harmony through connection).

Edited by lanjingling, 05 May 2006 - 09:30 PM.

[Elisha]

As for the etymology of the word religion, wikipedia provides differents explanations; the ones i've heard about were re-ligare (connect again ) & res-legare (concerning a gathering), enceforth "link"; they're also mentioning re-lego ,or read again or treat carefully, wich i had never heard of before.
Anyway i think that the etymology merely concerns the roman religion ,not the Christian, because the Christians merely borrowed the latin word for their own religion , without concern about what the roman religion was (the same way they used some pagan temples as churches , it's just a convenient cultural syncretism). But it could be interesting to check out what Christians philosophers , at the time that the latin word have been included in the christian vocabulary, were thinking about,like Isidore of Seville in his etymologies

I believe the roman catholics are christians too

The word "religion" is not found in the bible. It is a term that theologians like to use.

Longman dictionary of contemporary English defines 'theology' as 1) the study of religion and religious ideas and beliefs 2) a particular body of beliefs about religion

And reading elsewhere, I find that even in terms of christian theology, the bible is not very often referred to. Perhaps its because the theologians themselves want to make their writings accessible to peoples of all faith?

So there seems to be two ways that people approach issues regarding the faith (regardless of whether it be christian or muslim). One is via theological reasonings (using broad almost universal principles) and the other, from the bible itself. IMO, the former way is being outside looking in to make sense of 'christianity' whereas the latter is from inside reaching out to share what it's all about.

In hebrew, the word for religion is something like 'dat', means the law, & come from Est.3,8 & Dt.33,2 .

What is "Est" and "Dt"?

For the latter, I checked the book of Deutronomy but I don't think I understood rightly your reference.

In Thai (mainly Theravada Buddhist country), it's saatsanaa, a word coming from the Sanskrit shaas :to rule, teach + ana (suffix).
We can see that in Chinese,Thai,Sanskrit & Hebrew, the idea of an authority (the law, or a teacher) is always there , not in Latin , but if we accept the "link" etymology , then it seems that there is always an concern about social order (submission to an authority or social harmony through connection).

Hmm.. now we come to the meat of the discussion - a comparison of doctrine. I only can provide one half of the equation (the christian side) so would be grateful if anyone can provide the other side (chinese religion/philosophy) so we can do a comparison to determine if it's possible for syncretism. Please back it up with some authority or text.

(I have admitted from the start that the answer is "no". I'll explain. It's quite simple to understand if one takes the time to mull it over.)

Yes, you will see that most religious teachings are about the law - guidelines which seek to teach man how to live better lives. Hence, the underlying requirement of religion is in performance

But dig deeper. Why must there be a law? Why is there such a common concept amongst so many 'developed' religions from diverse places? And what do the rites mean?

In some ways, the old testament of the bible seems to correspond with all the other religions in laying down the law. But the law is a fearful thing (verse 18) because the law demands perfection.

Is keeping the law in the performance of it? If that's the case, what's the standard that we have to achieve? There must be a level in order to determine whether we have achieved the righteousness to enter heaven/reach nirvana - in order to atone for sins (the concept of karma)

According to the bible, the standard of the law is this Not only in deed but in thought. And of course, who can control thoughts? It is impossible.

So why is the law given then?

The explanation in Christianity is here.

Does it not seem unfair that the standard is so impossible to achieve? But how would one define holiness and righteousness? By man's standard? Theology would concur that God is totally perfect and holy. How can sinful man approach a holy God? That is why, according to the bible, right after He gave the 10 commandments, He told them to build an altar A picture of He who is to come.

Unlike the deities and Gods of other religions, the God of the Christians, Jesus Christ came as their sacrifice.

[Liang Jieming]

Unlike the deities and Gods of other religions, the God of the Christians, Jesus Christ came as their sacrifice.

Actually, Buddha sacrificed himself to show peope the way too. Just less spectacularly.

[lanjingling]

I believe the roman catholics are christians too

When i wrote "the roman religion", i meant "the roman empire's pagan religions", not "the roman Catholics", of course.

The word "religion" is not found in the bible. It is a term that theologians like to use.

Longman dictionary of contemporary English defines 'theology' as 1) the study of religion and religious ideas and beliefs 2) a particular body of beliefs about religion

And reading elsewhere, I find that even in terms of christian theology, the bible is not very often referred to. Perhaps its because the theologians themselves want to make their writings accessible to peoples of all faith?

So there seems to be two ways that people approach issues regarding the faith (regardless of whether it be christian or muslim). One is via theological reasonings (using broad almost universal principles) and the other, from the bible itself. IMO, the former way is being outside looking in to make sense of 'christianity' whereas the latter is from inside reaching out to share what it's all about.
What is "Est" and "Dt"?

For the latter, I checked the book of Deutronomy but I don't think I understood rightly your reference.
Hmm.. now we come to the meat of the discussion - a comparison of doctrine. I only can provide one half of the equation (the christian side) so would be grateful if anyone can provide the other side (chinese religion/philosophy) so we can do a comparison to determine if it's possible for syncretism. Please back it up with some authority or text.

(I have admitted from the start that the answer is "no". I'll explain. It's quite simple to understand if one takes the time to mull it over.)

Yes, you will see that most religious teachings are about the law - guidelines which seek to teach man how to live better lives. Hence, the underlying requirement of religion is in performance

But dig deeper. Why must there be a law? Why is there such a common concept amongst so many 'developed' religions from diverse places? And what do the rites mean?

In some ways, the old testament of the bible seems to correspond with all the other religions in laying down the law. But the law is a fearful thing (verse 18) because the law demands perfection.

Is keeping the law in the performance of it? If that's the case, what's the standard that we have to achieve? There must be a level in order to determine whether we have achieved the righteousness to enter heaven/reach nirvana - in order to atone for sins (the concept of karma)

According to the bible, the standard of the law is this Not only in deed but in thought. And of course, who can control thoughts? It is impossible.

So why is the law given then?

The explanation in Christianity is here.

Does it not seem unfair that the standard is so impossible to achieve? But how would one define holiness and righteousness? By man's standard? Theology would concur that God is totally perfect and holy. How can sinful man approach a holy God? That is why, according to the bible, right after He gave the 10 commandments, He told them to build an altar A picture of He who is to come.

Unlike the deities and Gods of other religions, the God of the Christians, Jesus Christ came as their sacrifice.

Est. is the Book of Ester: "their laws are different from the laws of every others people"
Dt. 32,2 when Moses says "my lesson is like the drops of raistorm", 'lesson' in hebrew is something like "eshedat', so "dat" because he is teaching the law .(i found the etymology in a dictionnary of biblical hebrew & aramaic).
You're right, the word "religion" in itself doesn't exist in the Bible.
I think the reason why there are so many theologians is simply because the Bible is not so easy to understand, & for every sentence one can find differents explanations.The explanations you provide about the law are not the only explanations, for exemple one could desagree with the fact that the altar is a picture of "he who is to come".
As Liang Jieming said, Lord Buddha also sacrificied himself. & when we read in the Bible that Abraham fought with an "angel"(who could have been God him/herself) & won, one can see this as a kind of sacrifice also . Unless you consider the jewish Bible as an introduction to the Gospels (i've met some Christians who think this way, wich i think pretty contemptuous towards the Jews), then we must admit that Jesus as no "monopoly" with self sacrifice

[Elisha]

Actually, Buddha sacrificed himself to show peope the way too. Just less spectacularly.

Really? I didn't know that. I thought he attained enlightenment. Was it his intention to sacrifice himself?

edit: I guess his death compared to Jesus is less spectacular.

To be scourged with the romans' cat-o-nine tails till one's back is in shreds and then to carry a piece of rough wood on raw flesh (He didn't manage to) and then have oneself nailed to the cross - not neat little nails like we have today, and not on the palm of the hands because it wouldn't have been able to support his weight, but nailed at His wrists. Then to hang on the cross for 6 hours till be bled out - yes, I suppose some people would consider it a spectacular way to die..

http://1stholistic.c...ion-medical.htm

Edited by Elisha, 07 May 2006 - 10:20 AM.

[Elisha]

As Liang Jieming said, Lord Buddha also sacrificied himself. & when we read in the Bible that Abraham fought with an "angel"(who could have been God him/herself) & won, one can see this as a kind of sacrifice also . Unless you consider the jewish Bible as an introduction to the Gospels (i've met some Christians who think this way, wich i think pretty contemptuous towards the Jews), then we must admit that Jesus as no "monopoly" with self sacrifice

1. Erm, not self-sacrifice. Came as the sacrifice. Self-sacrifice (denial of self -rights etc). Sacrifice is how you would kill a creature. Kind of like what they did during the Shang dynasty. To kill a human being is horrible; to kill God... and for God to allow Himself to be the sacrifice - that is something I do not understand.

It's beyond the gore and manner of death. Terrible as that is, it's only what we observe physically.

A Holy God became sin at the cross. I still cannot comprehend that. What horrors His soul and spirit to take on.

2. You would have to read the law from the perspective of attaining righteousness. If one is really sincere and ernest, one would realise how futile it is because it is never enough.

3. It wasn't Abraham who fought with the Angel. It was Jacob (you're referring to Genesis 32:24-28?)

[Liang Jieming]

Hehe, someone more knowledgeable in Buddhism would be able to answer you more definitively, but Buddha was originally a Prince who was saddened by the suffering in the world around him. He sacrified his riches and ultimately his life to achieve enlightenment in order to show his people the way, and that life itself was but a cycle which could be continually improved upon by doing good deeds and such, until one ultimately frees him/herself of the material world.

The two major sects of buddhism differ (like the Catholics and the Protestants) mainly in that one sect believes to this date only the original buddha has achieved "buddha-hood", while the other sect (mainly chinese) believe that many other have also attained "buddha-hood" (Eg. Guanyin).

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Are they still doing this? Experimenting new approaches and adding to their scriptures?

From what I understand, the nature of daoism (philosophy) is ever evolving.

Yes, even today, new sects of practice are coming up, (the falun da fa is just one example). The Dao Zang Jin Hua is complied in the 20th century from masters of the 19th and 20th century.

Also, with regards to text, daosim and buddhism are the writings of philosophers hoping to impart their wisdom and lessons they have learnt in the course of their life in search for the truth and enlightenment. The Christians believe that the bible is the word of God - here It makes no compromises in relation to integration with any other religion. 'It' refers to 'mainstream' christianity that is. If it's not mainstream, it is, IMO, very suspect

It is actually more than simple philosophical writings, but in China, there isn't a tradition of interpreting a sacred text word by word without any doubt of its mistake, since both Daoism and Buddhism emphasize the inperfection of words in the first place, and the sacred scriptures are difficult to interpret. Hence opinions in the form of commentaries are numerous, and even exist today. So there is never something similar to "this sentence is the way it is written and it has no other meaning, period."