The Mystic Texts of Early Christians----Self study, everywhere the same?
Options
Alkindus
Members Posts: 1,677 ✭✭✭
From the Filokalia to the Origenes and Symeon, during the 4th century AD, many (today called 'desert fathers') early christians went to Egypt and Palestine to (solely) study. They wrote a lot of interesting scrolls, scrolls which seem to have a allmost buddhist/taoist nature. The scrolls remind me of many
Would you say that it doesn't matter what relgion/ideology one has, because when people are on there own and start writing 'spiritual' things it all comes down to the same stuff? I mean there really isn't much of a difference between the sayings of the egyptian patriachs and kongzhi followers...when it comes to human nature and reaching enlightment etc they are all preaching the same stuff....which is interesting to say the least. or do you beg to differ on this?
also to christians and non-christians, whats your take on the scrolls? do you read them to better understand the bible ?
Would you say that it doesn't matter what relgion/ideology one has, because when people are on there own and start writing 'spiritual' things it all comes down to the same stuff? I mean there really isn't much of a difference between the sayings of the egyptian patriachs and kongzhi followers...when it comes to human nature and reaching enlightment etc they are all preaching the same stuff....which is interesting to say the least. or do you beg to differ on this?
also to christians and non-christians, whats your take on the scrolls? do you read them to better understand the bible ?
Comments
-
Truth cannot be plural if it objectively exists. It can't be self-contradictory.
Jesus says the word of ? is truth. Scripture tells us it is impossible for ? to lie.
The fact that scrolls exist don't automatically mean the teachings came from the mind of ? or that they the word of ? . That is to be established by comparing the writings previously known to be from ? to the writings of the scrolls in question.
You going to run into major problems trying to blend every 'spiritual' writing of men together with ? word because the same source is not behind all of them. Try to blend them all together and you no longer dealing with the truth. -
solid analysis wrote: »Truth cannot be plural if it objectively exists. It can't be self-contradictory.
Jesus says the word of ? is truth. Scripture tells us it is impossible for ? to lie.
The fact that scrolls exist don't automatically mean the teachings came from the mind of ? or that they the word of ? . That is to be established by comparing the writings previously known to be from ? to the writings of the scrolls in question.
You going to run into major problems trying to blend every 'spiritual' writing of men together with ? word because the same source is not behind all of them. Try to blend them all together and you no longer dealing with the truth.
What has been written by ? himself? -
solid analysis wrote: »Truth cannot be plural if it objectively exists. It can't be self-contradictory.
Jesus says the word of ? is truth. Scripture tells us it is impossible for ? to lie.
The fact that scrolls exist don't automatically mean the teachings came from the mind of ? or that they the word of ? . That is to be established by comparing the writings previously known to be from ? to the writings of the scrolls in question.
You going to run into major problems trying to blend every 'spiritual' writing of men together with ? word because the same source is not behind all of them. Try to blend them all together and you no longer dealing with the truth.
Problem with that is, that you assign word of ? Status to a book that was written by someone other than ? . The Whole new testament was supposedly wriiten by others after Jesus ascended. No where in the 66 books can you deduce that ? wrote it. Best you can say is that the writers were inspired by ? . So in essence there is nothing different of the claim of those scrolls except your perception of what they are. -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »What has been written by ? himself?
It's not bout that. It's about who has the right claim authorship to the words in the writings and who it originates from. The Bible claims it's author is ? .
But anyway, a similar question was asked before the written word even came into existence - "And if you say in your heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?" (Deuteronomy 18:21)
"When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken, but the prophet has spoken it presumptuously: you shall not be afraid of him." (Deuteronomy 18:22)
That's just one of the two tests. People before the written word existed were able to recognize what words were not from ? by this one test (and another i will post if needed to further make my point)...it's a wonder why people feel the need to have some sort of additional miraculous confirmation of what's what before they can recognize who the writings of the complete message come from now that it's here for us all to see....
But then again, the Bible often appears, to a lot of people, only to be as good as the person who's bringing the case for it or against it presents it to be. -
Problem with that is, that you assign word of ? Status to a book that was written by someone other than ? . The Whole new testament was supposedly wriiten by others after Jesus ascended. No where in the 66 books can you deduce that ? wrote it. Best you can say is that the writers were inspired by ? . So in essence there is nothing different of the claim of those scrolls except your perception of what they are.
I've never seen anywhere in the Bible where it tell us to accept it as just some inspired 'document of men about ? ' which is what the implication here seems to be.
And 'inspiration', the way it's used in the Biblical sense is not to be understood as being in the same way like how an artist gets inspired to paint a painting on some random day -
solid analysis wrote: »It's not bout that. It's about who has the right claim authorship to the words in the writings and who it originates from. The Bible claims it's author is ? .
But anyway, a similar question was asked before the written word even came into existence - "And if you say in your heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?" (Deuteronomy 18:21)
"When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken, but the prophet has spoken it presumptuously: you shall not be afraid of him." (Deuteronomy 18:22)
That's just one of the two tests. People before the written word existed were able to recognize what words were not from ? by this one test (and another i will post if needed to further make my point)...it's a wonder why people feel the need to have some sort of additional miraculous confirmation of what's what before they can recognize who the writings of the complete message come from now that it's here for us all to see....
But then again, the Bible often appears, to a lot of people, only to be as good as the person who's bringing the case for it or against it presents it to be.
You speak and write a languege which was not Gods.
Thats why ? couldn't have wrote the bible. It is the work of men, just think.
lost in translation and interpertation, the absence of the authors......reading the words of dead men. they are not hear to say what that meant, if that is even possible to express their true meaning with words....this is why ? is all of us and everything(from the desert fathers to your brother) because ? doesn't belief in symbols/labels. WORDS. If you seek pelgrimage, just keep your mouth closed.
