budaatum:

vaxx:
lol...

You budaatum is attributing the biblical Jesus to Socrates and Plato . I am assuming you are joking. It is like me saying ORUNMILA had so many deep insight explanation to most of the issues related to life and hence a philosopher. I actually don't think he will qualifiy unless I am being biased.( though he is consider a sage but will not be taking as a philosopher today )

Jesus idea was not unique, many religious leaders of his time across major tribes preaches similar idea. "" live your dammm business and follow me to go do my stuffs""

Jesus was silent on so many things. For example, he says nothing on creations, epistemology nko ? He says he is not here to change the law, so the idea that the people of his time understand God was assumed , even the idea of you can not come to daddy except me the son was not a rigourous logic. It failed flat. Permit me to say. John 3 vs 16 should have been taking from the bible. Whoever wrote it did a bad job and likewise
On meta-ethics, I doubt he says anything.

I believe he exist, the evidence is enough to convince me but there is no evidence that he was familiar with the rich body of work from earlier Greek philosophers (the famous three - Socrates, Plato and Aristotle - all lived way before Jesus)..who will have change his method or views of thinking.


Well, the bible depict him as a learned figure.

sonmvayina:

Just as JK Rowling depicts Harry Potter as a smart little wizard..

Make the connection your self,
JK Rowling s in this case will be Eusebius. The master forger..

budaatum:

There was an error with your link. I've corrected it above.

It is common for the doctrine of the new gods to be built on the ruins of the old, despite Christ alleged to have said, "you can't put new wines in old bottles". It in fact was literally the case that old bottles were always recycled. Who, after all could afford to throw them away?!

It is said that the Church had a policy of tagging Christianity on to indigenous religions and gods as it made them more acceptable to the locals. The Metropolitan Cathedral of the Assumption of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary into Heavens is a case in point. It was built atop the former Aztec sacred precinct where rituals and sacrifices dedicated to a pantheon of different deities were performed.

It might be what has been attempted with the bolt on of Christ to Yahweh, except the Yahweh idea could not be killed off, yet. It most likely is also why some Yorubas see Orunmila and Yahweh as the same entity despite them having almost nothing in common.

sonmvayina:


Or Olodumare and Yaweh, same idea different nomenclature

vaxx:
I have personally ask you once to provide whatever you have as evidence against Jesus nonexistence. Can you pls do i want to read your veiw.....

Eusebius is an important christain figure , mind you.

sonmvayina:

Just as JK Rowling depicts Harry Potter as a smart little wizard..

Make the connection your self,
JK Rowling s in this case will be Eusebius. The master forger..

sonmvayina:


Google "the forged origin of the new testament" it is a good research by Tony Bushey...

In a good Friday bouquet In 1514, pope Leo x, raised his chalice and said " How profitable this fable of Christ has been for us and our predecessors"

What really clinched it for me was the fact that there is absolutely no connection with the old testament.. It's like me adding a biology textbook at the end of a physics textbook and giving it a new name..

Check for "the jesus the jews never knew" on Amazon, it's a good read

vaxx:
hmmmm, what about exegesis used by bible scholars

sonmvayina:


Most of the time it is out of context quotations...

vaxx:


You budaatum is attributing the biblical Jesus to Socrates and Plato . I am assuming you are joking. It is like me saying ORUNMILA had so many deep insight explanation to most of the issues related to life and hence a philosopher. I actually don't think he will qualifiy unless I am being biased.( though he is consider a sage but will not be taking as a philosopher today )

budaatum:

Socrates and Orunmila… Putting Premium On Africa’s Indigenous Philosophy


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nrrpo4mxFkI

vaxx:

On meta-ethics, I doubt he says anything.

budaatum:

Meta-ethics addresses questions such as "What is goodness?" and "How can we tell what is good from what is bad?", seeking to understand the nature of ethical properties and evaluations

I suggest you read the Gospels!

vaxx:
i see where you are coming from.. but not all the time . so many effort had been invested to proto- evangelium that is even study as part of theology program in the uni.

It is a serious research business. Though it comes with own flaws. But there are good reasons to see logic in it.

sonmvayina:


I don't think so.. Have you really studied or seen the basics..?

Take for example, the book of Isaiah, chapter 45:7,which says "I form the light and creates darkness, I make well being and create disaster I the Lord do all these things.
Then his supposed son in New testament is saying some one else is responsible for evil, darkness and disaster.. It does not make any sense..
The old testament is a unitary system of belief where God is 1,and responsible for both good and evil, while the new testament is a dualistic belief with separate Gods for good and evil..
I don't know if I am communicating with you?

vaxx:


Exegesis focus is to arrive at objectivity and any form of personal interpretation is highly discarded.

vaxx:


""The true philological spirit, or critical spirit, or scholarly spirit, in biblical interpretation has as its goal to discover the original meaning and intention of the text. Its goal is exegesis --to lead the meaning out of the text and shuns eisogesis --bringing a meaning to the text."" Anonymous .

Exegesis focus is to arrive at objectivity and any form of personal interpretation is highly discarded.

Have you read the exegesis meaning of that verse?


This are simply my own opinion.

budaatum:

And in your own experience, would you say people who claim to exegesise discard personal interpretation?

sonmvayina:
,

Yes I have.. From wide range of authorities.. In such fields.

vaxx:
Based on my own findings , the exegesis are based on two things and that is all what interpretation of Scripture depends: which is the process of discovering what is needed to learn, and the process of presenting what have been learned.

vaxx:
And your conclusion is the verse has no no correlation with the latest verse.

sonmvayina:


Not at all, they

Most who differ are Christian apologetics... Not real Jewish rabii who explains from historical and theological perspectives.

budaatum:

Can you point out references to "personal interpretations" in the above statement?

vaxx:
This two things are objective method and that is the scientific study of the gospel. (Some say pseudoscience anyway)because they do not always arrive at the same conclusion.


Therefore exegesis is basically the same method but may arrive at different interpretation.

budaatum:

Are you avoiding answering the question, or did you not understand it?

Can you point out references to "personal interpretations" (and thereby, subjective) in your statement?

vaxx:
I have explain it in details. And when I say they do not always arrive at the same conclusion. It simply means there are diffrence perspective from personal interpretation or independent body.


Catholic understanding of bible is different from Anglican. .

budaatum:

Vaxx, are you admitting that while one may claim one is exegesising, objectively, one may in truth be being subjective, and even eisegetic?


Are "different perspective" and "personal interpretation" not both subjective?

vaxx:
Once the goal of defending a particular theological position replaces that goal of objectivity, biblical interpretation becomes a matter of pitting my theological prejudice against yours and it is done to favour desire and not the scope ( this is definitely subjective ). So i belief it is this approach that is causing the biggest challengies in church today.

This is why some people called the entire theology diciplne pseudoscience just like like how social science is consider soft science because of this subjective nature.

budaatum:

So, even exegesising can, and often is, pure subjectivity, right?

vaxx:
lol...You budaatum is attributing the biblical Jesus to Socrates and Plato .
I am assuming you are joking.
It is like me saying ORUNMILA had so many deep insight explanation to most of the issues related to life and hence a philosopher.
I actually don't think he will qualifiy unless I am being biased (though he is consider a sage but will not be taking as a philosopher today)

vaxx:
Jesus idea was not unique,
many religious leaders of his time across major tribes preaches similar idea.
"leave live your dammm business and follow me to go do my stuffs"

Jesus was silent on so many things.
For example, he says nothing on creations,
epistemology nko? He says he is not here to change the law,
so the idea that the people of his time understand
God was assumed, even the idea of you can not come to daddy except me the son was not a rigourous logic.
It failed flat. Permit me to say.
John 3 vs 16 should have been taking from the bible. Whoever wrote it did a bad job and likewise
On meta-ethics, I doubt he says anything.

vaxx:
I believe he exist, the evidence is enough to convince me
but there is no evidence that he was familiar with the rich body of work from earlier Greek philosophers
(the famous three - Socrates, Plato and Aristotle - all lived way before Jesus)..
who will have change his method or views of thinking.

vaxx:
Well, the bible depict him as a learned figure.

vaxx:
That is not the goal initially. The Bible expressed itself already. ( love your neighbour as yourself) i think this verse interprets itself without any form of ambiguity. Subjectivity is just simply based on human desire in this category and not the scope. I will agree that many bible apologetic have a penchant for isigesis (reading into the text) as opposed to proper exegesis (a critical explanation or interpretation of a text.