Reading holy books for fun

mgb_phys

Being tied to a tree for a few days and surviving to gain godlike superpowers isn't exactly original either.

Moonbear

Interesting. Though, the possibility of having mixed up two brothers with similar sounding names in the retelling of a story is the least of inconsistencies that would bother me...that actually sounds highly plausible (anyone with siblings close in age to them will appreciate how frequently this could happen).


Or at least until the next time God sends a prophet telling them that man has forgotten or corrupted Mohammed's teachings. It seems each of the holy books is written from this perspective, that God has gotten fed up with the misinterpretations of his instructions and sent someone down to explain them to the people. (I wonder when He'll figure out that he has to illustrate the instruction manuals with pictures if He wants man to follow them? )

Moonbear

The Christian Bible also never states that they were married. They were betrothed (in modern language, the equivalent of either an engagement, or an agreement for an arranged marriage). There's no mention of them ever getting married, nor any indication of whether they even lived together as husband and wife....as far as I've read, it's pretty open for interpretation.

TVP45

Matthew 1 is pretty clear that Joseph married Mary but waited until after the birth of Jesus to have sex.

TVP45

You're not alone. I got tossed out of a Baptist church for wondering whether Jesus ever showed any interest in women.

Astronuc

From the Buddhist side - one should read the Dhammapada and the Tripitaka (Sanskrit)/Tiptaka (Pali), or Three Baskets.

turbo

The nuns used to carry long wooden pointers with rubber tips, and not just for pointing at the blackboard. When one of them said that God can do anything, I raised my hand and asked if God could sin. (After all, that's what we being taught - a hierarchy of severity of sins that could get you damned to hell or lock you up in purgatory for a long time.) That nun was old and rotund, but she was lightning fast with that pointer. My poor knuckles.

iansmith

My bad, I should have been more specific. Just to add to the details, Joseph is not mentioned in the Qur'an.

mheslep

Given a goal of relating to current world affairs, I'd highly recommend digging into some of the early western cannon - some of those authors are fundamental to understanding how Christianity developed. These authors framed some of the famous ideas and even create some of the common language. (Milton's invention of Satan's revolt against God & the temptation of Jesus - mythology not in the bible). I'd start with Augustine's the 'City of God' and then 'On Christian Doctrine'. Augustine lived a fascinating life - born in N. Africa in the last days of the Roman empire and wrote in the context of Alarics's sack of Rome. Deep debates with Roman officials and the neo-Platonists of the time. I think you'll get more for your time if you closely couple the Biblical reading w/ Augustine. Example: On Christian Doctrine III Chap. 10 "...to find out whether a phrase is literal or figurative...". Hope this helps.

Evo

That would be more related to the New Testament, since Alaric sacked Rome in roughly 400 AD.

So do we discuss the Old Testament or the New Testament? Perhaps progressing through both chronologically would be best.

Benzoate

catholics aren't allowed to read the bible?

EnumaElish

I am not a Koranic scholar by a very long shot. Muslims see Jesus as a holy human being. Although he is not god, he is a special prophet¹ because he was the one before the last (Mohammad) and he promised to return. So he is the messiah.² He is seen as having born a human child to a human mother from a human father (albeit through divine intervention).³ Muslims do refer to him as "our lord Jesus," whereby "lord" means "holy man" (similar to Mary[am] being venerated as "the Lady of the women of the world").

First time I've heard of these. Islamic tradition holds satan (shaitan) more as a desperate trickster than anti-God or "praxis of Evil" (pun intended) -- with subtle political connotations (Iran's notion of U.S. as the "great shaitan" [itex]\ne[/itex] Bush's notion of Iran as "pure evil"). I wonder whether these could be Christianity's version of "satanic verses."

Notes:
¹Somewhat contradicting this, the Wiki page on Islam states: "A Muslim believes in all the Messengers and Prophets of God without any discrimination," a statement possibly based on [Qur'an 3:144] "Muhammad is but a messenger; messengers (the like of whom) have passed away before him." However, see below.
²"And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment): therefore have no doubt about the (Hour), but follow ye Me: this is a Straight Way. — [Qur'an 43:61]," which seems to ascribe a special mission to Jesus that is not accorded to other prophets.
³See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryam_%28sura%29

mgb_phys

Not back in evo's day (get's coat and runs ......)

Moonbear

Ah, you're right. All the versions state he was her husband (quite interesting that it also makes it clear that he is NOT the father of Jesus, yet provides Joseph's geneology, not Mary's, thus we know nothing of Jesus' actual geneology from that accounting).

This is not as clear. Only one version I read states it that way. Others phrase it to be the actual marriage, or living together, not necessarily relating it to having intercourse. It seems more that since they weren't yet married, but still engaged, at the time Mary found she was pregnant, and Joseph being convinced not to break it off entirely, they waited until after the baby was born to get married.

mheslep

410, Augustine began City of God in 413 in partially in response to those Romans who blamed Christianity for the fall. He writes on both old and new testament questions:
City of God:
Book XV: Genesis from the time of Cain/Abel to the flood
Book XVI: includes Abraham to the Kings of Israel.
Book XVII: includes Kings, Psalms, books of Solomon.

TVP45

Yes, I take your point. The sex is not as clear. I'm going over to the Reform Temple in a week or so and will try to get the Rabbi to fill me in on Jewish marriage customs from that time.

BTW, I do have Mary's genealogy somewhere, courtesy of the LDS. If I recall correctly (a very shaky proposition), she was Joseph's second cousin, so it's pretty much similar.

CaptainQuasar

Yeah, it's significant to note that many of the doctrines of Christianity don't derive from the Bible itself but come through tradition and interpretation by theologians like Augustine of Hippo there.

Original sin is a big one Augustine authored (although the reasoning is based on citations from Genesis, I don't believe Jews or Muslims hold to it - though I'd be interested to hear otherwise). Just war too, which is kind of interesting given Augustine's involvement in the eradication of the Donatists, an early Christian sect that did not accept the authority of the Church of Rome. This helped to set the tone for the way the Church responded to heresy and schism in the ensuing centuries and millenia.

Augustine is also a major factor in the conventional Christian view that sexuality is sinful. His chief interlocutor at the time, Pelagius, basically responded “Right, whatever. I'll have sex with my wife whenever I want.” (This was before priests were required to be abstinent.) But Pelagius was branded a heretic, so much for that. (Though oddly enough, of the modern sects I'm familiar with modern Catholicism probably takes the most Pelagian view of sexuality.)

Another interesting example of extra-scriptural doctrine is the Trinity. It always amuses me when non-Catholics who decry the Catholic Church, declare that their Christianity is strictly Bible-based, and buy into the “Papacy is the Antichrist” doctrine unblinkingly accept wholly Roman doctrines like the Trinity or the selection of which scriptures are in the Bible as the Word of God and which aren't.