Relativismul:toate religiile sunt bune

[Adriana3]

În prealabil postat de catalin2

Tu afirmi ca unii au nevoie doar de Lege pentru a se mantui, adica de faptele legii. Asta e un fel de iudaism. Probabil acei profesori au spus ca in cazuri exceptionale se pot mantui si eterodocsi. Exceptionale, adica prin mila lui Dumnezeu, nu din faptele lor.
Ai spus ca tu crezi ca la impartasanie este Trupul si Sangele Domnului, dar pentru tine nu are prea mare importanta din ce reiese din mesaje. Neoprotestantii (si unii protestanti) care nu cred ca acolo este Sangele si Trupul spui ca nu sunt diferiti de ortodocsi, conteaza doar credinta lor in Iisus. Paganii nici macar nu au nevoie de credinta, conteaza faptele lor. Si astfel Iisus a venit doar in vizita, oricum se mantuiau oamenii.

Catalin,

Este ultima oara ca iti atrag atentia inainte de a te face mincinos rau-intentionat in public: atunci cand imi zici "tu afirmi ca", sa faci bine si sa dai citatul din postarile mele care sa arate ca am afirmat intr-adevar ceea ce sustii tu, pentru ca pana acum sunt doar minciuni, niciodata nu am afirmat ceea ce sustii tu.

[tara tara vrem ostas]

Exodus never happened and the walls of Jericho did not come a-tumbling down. How archaeologists are shaking Israel to its biblical foundations.

Israel Finkelstein, chairman of the Archaeology Department at Tel Aviv University, with archaeology historian Neil Asher Silberman, has just published a book called "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Text."

"The Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land [of Canaan] in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the twelve tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united kingdom of David and Solomon, described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom."

<< These statements correspond well with what was written by John Rembsburg:

"In the 12th chapter of Joshua is given a list of 31 kingdoms which were conquered by Israel. This was in the fifteenth century B.C. From this time forward they are represented as a mighty nation by Bible historians.

Rameses III overran Canaan and conquered it between 1280 and 1260 B.C. The Egyptian records give a list of all the tribes inhabiting it. The children of Israel-- the Hebrews-- were not there. In the 5th century B.C., when Herodotus, the father of History, was collecting materials for his immortal work, he traversed nearly every portion of Western Asia. He describes all its principal peoples and places; but the Jews and Jerusalem are of too little consequence to merit a line from his pen. Not until 332 B.C. do the Jews appear upon the stage of history, and then only as the submissive vassals of a Grecian king."

John E. Remsburg, The Bible (1901), pg. 263.

The tales of the patriarchs -- Abraham, Isaac and Joseph among others -- were the first to go when biblical scholars found those passages rife with anachronisms and other inconsistencies. The story of Exodus, one of the most powerful epics of enslavement, courage and liberation in human history, also slipped from history to legend when archaeologists could no longer ignore the lack of corroborating contemporary Egyptian accounts and the absence of evidence of large encampments in the Sinai Peninsula ("the wilderness" where Moses brought the Israelites after leading them through the parted Red Sea).

Finkelstein is an iconoclast. He established his reputation in part by developing a theory about the settlement patterns of the nomadic shepherd tribes who would eventually become the Israelites, bolstering the growing consensus that they were originally indistinguishable from the rest of their neighbors, the Canaanites. This overturns a key element in the Bible: The Old Testament depicts the Israelites as superior outsiders -- descended from Abraham, a Mesopotamian immigrant -- entitled by divine order to invade Canaan and exterminate its unworthy, idolatrous inhabitants.

The famous battle of Jericho, with which the Israelites supposedly launched this campaign of conquest after wandering for decades in the desert, has been likewise debunked: The city of Jericho didn't exist at that time and had no walls to come tumbling down. These assertions are all pretty much accepted by mainstream archaeologists.


"Research is research, and strong societies can easily endure discoveries like this." By comparison with today's skeptical turmoil, the early years of the modern Israeli state were a honeymoon period for archaeology and the Bible, in which the science seemed to validate the historical passages of the Old Testament left and right. As Finkelstein and Silberman relate, midcentury archaeologists usually "took the historical narratives of the Bible at face value"; Israel's first archaeologists were often said to approach a dig with a spade in one hand and the Bible in the other. The Old Testament frequently served as the standard against which all other data were measured: If someone found majestic ruins, they dated them to Solomon's time; signs of a battle were quickly attributed to the conquest of Canaan. Eventually, though, as archaeological methods improved and biblical scholars analyzed the text itself for inconsistencies and anachronisms, the amount of the Bible regarded as historically verifiable eroded. The honeymoon was over.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In particular, the account of Joshua's conquest of Canaan is inconsistent with the archaeological evidence. Cities supposedly conquered by Joshua in the 14th century bce were destroyed long before he came on the scene. Some, such as Ai and Arad, had been ruins for a 1000 years.

The Book of Judges, which directly contradicts Joshua, and shows the Israelites settling the land over a prolonged period, is nearer historical reality; but even it cannot be taken at face value. The archaeological surveys conducted over the past two decades indicate that the origin and development of the Israelite entity was somewhat different from either of the rival accounts in the Bible. The survey was conducted by more than a dozen archaeologists, most of them from Tel Aviv University's Institute of Archaeology.


Around 1200 bce, semi-nomads from the desert fringes to the east and the south, possibly including Egypt, began to settle in the hill country of Canaan. A large proportion - probably a majority of this population - were refugees from the Canaanite city states, destroyed by the Egyptians in one of their periodic invasions. The conclusion is somewhat startling to Bible readers who know the Canaanites portrayed in the Bible as immoral idolaters: most of the Israelites were in fact formerly Canaanites. The story of Abraham's journey from Ur of the Chaldees, the Patriarchs, the Exodus, Sinai, and the conquest of Canaan, all these were apparently based on legends that the various elements brought with them from their countries of origin. The consolidation of the Israelites into a nation was not the result of wanderings in the desert and divine revelation, but came from the need to defend themselves against the Philistines, who settled in the Canaanite coastal plain more or less at the same time the Israelites were establishing themselves in the hills.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ze’ev Herzog (born 1941) is an Israeli archeologist, professor of archaeology at The Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures at Tel Aviv University specializing in social archaeology, ancient architecture and field archaeology. Ze’ev Herzog has been the director of The Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology since 2005, and serves as archaeological advisor to the Israel Nature and National Parks Protection Authority in the preservation and development of National Parks at Arad and Beer Sheba.

Herzog took part in the excavations of Tel Hazor and Tel Megiddo with Yigael Yadin and in excavations at Tel Arad and Tel Be'er Sheva with Yohanan Aharoni. He directed the excavations at Tel Beer Sheba, Tel Michal and Tel Gerisa and in 1997 began a new exploration project at Tel Yafo (ancient Jaffa).

Herzog is among archaeologists who say that “biblical archaeology is not anymore the ruling paradigm in archaeology and that archaeology became an independent discipline with its own conclusions and own observations which indeed present us a picture of a reality of ancient Israel quite different from the one which is described in the biblical stories.”[1]

In 1999 Herzog’s cover page article in the weekly magazine Haaretz "Deconstructing the walls of Jericho" attracted considerable public attention and debates. In this article Herzog cites evidence supporting that "the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, Jehovah, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai".[2]

[Raziel]

În prealabil postat de catalin2

Nici eu nu inteleg ce nu intelegi. Ai spus ca ai conceptia lui Spinoza si eu ti-am spus ce credea Spinoza. Daca nu e suficient poti citi la panteism: http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panteism

Adica vrei sa zici ca eu l-as fi pomenit pe Spinoza fara sa stiu cine e, si ai vrut sa ma lamuresti tu si sa-mi spui ca e panteist, nu?
Apropo, citeste cu atentie ce-am scris, eu nu am spus ca am coneptia lui Spinoza ci doar ca rezonez cel mai mult cu ea, in ceea ce priveste divinitatea. Nu ma intereseaza etichetele gen: ateu, panteist, crestin, agnostic etc.

[tara tara vrem ostas]

Archeology has long been considered a good friend of the Hebrew Bible. Just as Heinrich Schliemann's discoveries proved that Homer's stories were not purely mythical, so archeological discoveries in Old Testament lands have been taken to demonstrate that the Bible is history rather than legend. Although for centuries textual critics have realized that the Old Testament represents the editing together of several texts produced at different times by different groups, until the 1970s most archeologists continued to accept its accounts at face value. Since virtually all were Christians or Jews with a strong commitment to the truth of the Bible, they interpreted their finds in light of scripture. No wonder, then, that archeological findings confirmed the Bible when researchers used the Old Testament to identify, date, and interpret the significance of the towns, buildings, pottery, and other artifacts they unearthed.

But in the 1970s a new trend emerged as archeologists began to treat discoveries in the Holy Land as they would those anywhere else. Concentrating on Israel's ancient history itself, rather than solely on its biblical associations, they used artifacts, architecture, settlement patterns, animal bones, seeds, soil samples, anthropological models drawn from world cultures, and other modern methods to produce a description based on scientific evidence. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman (Free Press, New York, 2001, 385 pages, ISBN 0684869128, cloth, $26.00; Touchstone Books, New York, 2002, ISBN 0684869136, paperback, $14.00) brings this scholarship to a general audience. Dr. Finkelstein is director of the Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University, and Dr. Silberman is director of historical interpretation for the Ename Center for Public Archaeology and Heritage Presentation in Belgium.

Seeking to "separate history from legend," the authors "share the most recent archaeological insights -- still largely unknown outside scholarly circles -- not only on when, but also why the Bible was written," discoveries which "have revolutionized the study of early Israel and have cast serious doubt on the historical basis of such famous biblical stories as the wanderings of the Patriarchs, the Exodus from Egypt and conquest of Canaan, and the glorious empire of David and Solomon" (p. 3). The Bible Unearthed discusses in some detail the evidence behind these claims, and shows why, although "no archaeologist can deny that the Bible contains legends, characters, and story fragments that reach far back in time. . . . archaeology can show that the Torah and the Deuteronomistic History bear unmistakable hallmarks of their initial compilation in the seventh century BCE" (p. 23).

The Bible opens its account of the Jewish people with the wandering of the patriarchs, beginning with Abraham. To judge by recent cover stories in such magazines as National Geographic and Time, one would think that Abraham must be a well-established historical character. Said to be a Babylonian from Ur in what is now southern Iraq, according to Genesis Abraham moved northwest to Haran in southern Turkey, where the voice of God told him to go south into Canaan. The Bible traces all the nations of the region to his family. The Moabites and Ammonites derive from his nephew Lot; the Jews and southern Arabs from Abraham's sons, Isaac and Ishmael respectively. There follow Isaac's sons Esau -- father of the Edomites and other desert tribes -- and Jacob; then Jacob's twelve sons, each of whom ruled one of the twelve tribes of Israel. One son, Joseph, is sold into slavery in Egypt. During a famine the rest of the family, seeking relief there, discover that Joseph has risen high in the Pharaoh's favor. After Jacob's death, the children of Israel remain in Egypt.

What archeological evidence is there concerning these biblical figures? Archeologists, many of them churchmen, have searched in- tensely for evidence of the historical patriarchs because they felt that unless these people actually existed, their own religious faith would be erroneous. Although the Bible provides a great deal of specific information, the search has proved unsuccessful. Discrepancies in details are significant because such "specific references in the text to cities, neighboring peoples, and familiar places are precisely those aspects that distinguish the patriarchal stories from completely mythical folktales. They are crucially important for identifying the date and message of the text" (p. 38). For example, camels were not commonly used as beasts of burden in the Near East until the seventh century BCE, and the Philistines did not settle in Canaan until after 1200 BCE. Excavation of several sites mentioned as prominent in Genesis sometimes show that in the early Iron Age they were insignificant or nonexistent, but by the late eighth and seventh century BCE had become important.

Analysis shows, moreover, that the genealogies of the patriarchs and the nations deriving from them represent "a colorful human map of the ancient Near East from the unmistakable viewpoint of the kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Judah in the eighth and seventh centuries BCE. These stories offer a highly sophisticated commentary on political affairs in this region in the Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods" (pp. 38-9). The Bible also gives a dominant role to Judah in Genesis, even though at that time it was insignificant:

It is now evident that the selection of Abraham, with his close connection to Hebron, Judah's earliest royal city, and to Jerusalem . . . was meant also to emphasize the primacy of Judah even in the earliest eras of Israel's history. It is almost as if an American scripture describing pre-Columbian history placed inordinate attention on Manhattan Island or on the tract of land that would later become Washington, D.C. The pointed political meaning of the inclusion of such a detail in a larger narrative at least calls into question its historical credibility. -- p. 43

The authors conclude that the patriarchal traditions

must be considered as a sort of pious "prehistory" of Israel in which Judah played a decisive role. They describe the very early history of the nation, delineate ethnic boundaries, emphasize that the Israelites were outsiders and not part of the indigenous population of Canaan, and embrace the traditions of both the north and the south, while ultimately stressing the superiority of Judah. -- p. 45

Rather than a chronicle or history, evidence indicates that this part of Genesis was a national epic created in the seventh century BCE which successfully joined many regional legendary ancestors into one unified tradition.

A second series of biblical events revolves around the slavery of the Jewish people in Egypt, the miraculous escape of 600,000 led by Moses, their wandering in the wilderness for forty years, their swift conquest of the Promised Land under Joshua, and the slaughter of all the original inhabitants. These events, memorialized in major Jewish festivals, occupy four of the first five books of the Bible traditionally attributed to Moses. Physical evidence and historical texts confirm that Canaanites had traditionally settled in the prosperous east delta region of Egypt, particularly in times of drought, famine, and war. Some came as landless conscripts and prisoners of war, others as farmers, herders, or tradesmen. Egyptian historians tell of the Hyksos, Canaanite immigrants who became dominant in a great delta city and were forcibly expelled by the Egyptians around 1570 BCE. After the Hyksos expulsion, the Egyptian government controlled immigration from Canaan closely and built forts along the eastern delta and at one-day intervals along the Mediterreanean coast to Gaza. These forts kept extensive records, none of which mention the Israelites or any other foreign ethnic group entering, leaving, or living as a people in the delta.

Biblical scholars place the Exodus in the late thirteenth century BCE, and up to that time there is only one mention of the name Israel, despite many Egyptian records concerning Canaan. Nor is there any archeological evidence for a body of people encamping in the desert and mountains of Sinai in the Late Bronze Age:

Sites mentioned in the Exodus narrative are real. A few were well known and apparently occupied in much earlier periods and much later periods -- after the kingdom of Judah was established, when the text of the biblical narrative was set down in writing for the first time. Unfortunately for those seeking a historical Exodus, they were unoccupied precisely at the time they reportedly played a role in the events of the wandering of the children of Israel in the wilderness. -- p. 64

[tara tara vrem ostas]

Archeology also reveals dramatic discrepancies concerning the military campaign of Joshua, dated between 1230-1220 BCE, when the powerful Canaanite kings were supposedly destroyed and the twelve tribes inherited their traditional territories. Abundant Late Bronze Age Egyptian diplomatic and military correspondence and other existing texts give detailed information about Canaan, which was closely administered by Egypt at that time for a period of several centuries. The Canaanite cities were small and unfortified -- Jericho and some of the other cities mentioned were even unsettled altogether -- and the total population of Canaan probably did not exceed 100,000. While in fact many Canaanite cities were burned and destroyed in the thirteenth century BCE, evidence points to widespread causes affecting also prosperous cultures in Greece, Turkey, Syria, and Egypt. A major factor was mysterious, violent invaders known as the Sea People, who included the Philistines. In 1185 BCE the last king of Ugarit (a large port on the coast of Syria) wrote that "enemy boats have arrived, the enemy has set fire to the cities and wrought havoc. My troops are in Hittite country, my boats in Lycia, and the country has been left to its own devices" (p. 87). A contemporary Egyptian inscription states that "The foreign countries made a conspiracy in their islands. . . . No land could stand before their arms" (ibid.). In evaluating the biblical account, Finkelstein and Silberman conclude that

The book of Joshua offered an unforgettable epic with a clear lesson -- how, when the people of Israel did follow the Law of the covenant with God to the letter, no victory could be denied to them. That point was made with some of the most vivid folktales -- the fall of the walls of Jericho, the sun standing still at Gibeon, the rout of Canaanite kings down the narrow ascent at Beth-horon -- recast as a single epic against a highly familiar and suggestive seventh century background, and played out in places of the greatest concern to the Deuteronomistic ideology. In reading and reciting these stories, the Judahites of the late seventh century BCE would have seen their deepest wishes and religious beliefs expressed. -- pp. 94-5

But if the Israelites did not flee Egypt and invade Canaan, who were they? After the Arab-Israeli War of 1967, Jewish archeologists began to thoroughly explore, map, and analyze the hill country of Judah, looking for settlement patterns, evidence of lifestyles, and changes in demography and the environment.

These surveys revolutionized the study of early Israel. The discovery of the remains of a dense network of highland villages -- all apparently established within the span of a few generations -- indicated that a dramatic social transformation had taken place in the central hill country of Canaan around 1200 BCE. There was no sign of violent invasion or even the infiltration of a clearly defined ethnic group. Instead, it seemed to be a revolution in lifestyle. In the formerly sparsely populated highlands from the Judean hills in the south to the hills of Samaria in the north, far from the Canaanite cities that were in the process of collapse and disintegration, about two-hundred fifty hilltop communities suddenly sprang up. Here were the first Israelites. -- p. 107

Further research showed that there had been two previous waves of settlement: first in the Early Bronze Age around 3500 BCE, peaking at about 100 villages and towns, which were abandoned around 2200 BCE; and again in the Middle Bronze Age shortly after 2000 BCE, resulting in 220 settlements ranging from villages to towns and fortified centers, comprising perhaps 40,000 people. This period ended sometime in the sixteenth century BCE, and the highlands remained sparsely populated for 400 years. The Israelite settlements of around 1200 BCE contained 45,000 people in 250 sites, climaxing in the eighth century BCE with 160,000 people in over 500 sites. During settled times, farming was common; in unsettled times, herding sheep and goats dominated, a pattern found throughout the Middle East. As Canaanite cities collapsed, the pastoralists in the hills were forced to grow their own grain and produce, resulting in settlements. Thus,

the emergence of early Israel was an outcome of the collapse of the Canaanite culture, not its cause. And most of the Israelites did not come from outside Canaan -- they emerged from within it. There was no mass Exodus from Egypt. There was no violent conquest of Canaan. Most of the people who formed early Israel were local people -- the same people whom we see in the highlands throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages. The early Israelites were -- irony of ironies -- themselves originally Canaanites! -- p. 118

The authors hold in this connection that the stories in the Book of Judges about conflicts with the Canaanites -- such as those concerning Samson, Deborah, and Gideon -- may be authentic memories of village conflicts and local heroes preserved as folktales, combined and recast for later theological and political purposes.

Thirdly, the Bible tells of the golden age of the united kingdom of Israel ruled over by a Judean monarch, first David and then his son Solomon. It describes a renowned empire spreading from the Red Sea to the border of Syria, the splendor of Jerusalem and the first Temple built by Solomon, as well as other magnificent building projects. This united kingdom then split into Israel in the north and Judah in the south. Does archeology confirm this picture? Despite legendary exaggerations and elaborations, the authors believe that David and Solomon did exist -- but as minor highland chieftains ruling a population of perhaps 5,000 people. No archeological evidence exits around 1005-970 BCE for David's conquest or his empire, nor in Solomon's time (ca. 970-931 BCE) is there any evidence of monumental architecture or of Jerusalem as more than a village:

As far as we can see on the basis of the archaeological surveys, Judah remained relatively empty of permanent population, quite isolated, and very marginal right up to and past the presumed time of David and Solomon, with no major urban centers and with no pronounced hierarchy of hamlets, villages, and towns. -- p. 132
There is no trace of written documents or inscriptions, nor of the Temple or palace of Solomon, and buildings once identified with Solomon have been shown to date from other periods. Current evidence refutes the existence of a unified kingdom: "The glorious epic of united monarchy was -- like the stories of the patriarchs and the sagas of the Exodus and conquest -- a brilliant composition that wove together ancient heroic tales and legends into a coherent and persuasive prophecy for the people of Israel in the seventh century BCE" (p. 144).

[tara tara vrem ostas]

There are untold narrative errors and impossibilities to be found in the history, but here’s an unassuming one. The books describe the use of domesticated camels during the early experiences of the Israelites. However this would have been impossible – camels weren’t domesticated in the region until much later. The only explanation is that the writers added their own contemporary experience to the story – in other words, the stories, even if actually passed down, had been corrupted.

[Raziel]

În prealabil postat de catalin2

Nu, asta cu alte religii e o alta discutie mult mai lunga.
Am auzit de fosfor alb de vreo 999 de ori, fiecare ateu sta la coada sa imi spuna de fosfor alb. Am scris si eu de vreo zece ori despre asta, e doar o prostie.

Ca sa te lamuresc, nu ma intereseaza presupusele minuni, de ce? pentru ca pana acum nu am experimentat niciuna, cand se va intampla treaba asta mai stam de vorba.
Tu ai fost la Ierusalaim si ai asistat personal la asa zisa minune? Eu n-am asistat deci nu pot sa ma pronunt in cunostinta de cauza dar posibilitatea infaptuiri unei minuni pentru mine este undeva la 0,0000001 % si chiar daca ar fi, asta tot nu dovedeste mare lucru.

[Raziel]

În prealabil postat de Adriana3

Parerea mea este urmatoarea: Dumnezeu nu are nevoie de Iad si nici macar nu l-a creat El ci lucrurile stau in felul urmator: Dumnezeu a creat totul bun si bine. Iar desavarsirea binelui este posibilitatea pe care creaturile sale inteligente (ingeri, oameni) o au de a accepta ceea ce Dumnezeu considera ca este bine sau de a refuza acest bine. Ei, in momentul in care binele este refuzat, creatura traieste o stare in care nu-i este bine si aceasta stare este Iadul. Cand insa doreste binele asa cum l-a conceput Dumnezeu, traieste o stare de bine si acesta este Raiul. Adam si Eva aveau aceasta putere de a trai binele in chip desavarsit dar au ales raul, asta dupa ce si o parte din ingeri au ales raul. Dupa cum vedeti, sarpele Satana era si el pe acolo, iar Adam si Eva nu erau in Iad ci in Paradis inainte de greseala lor. Si tot pe acolo umbla si Dumnezeu. Deci in Paradis erau oamenii, satana si Dumnezeu... asta pana omul a gresit si a fost alungat de acolo, iar Satana codita dupa om...

Deci ingerii si oamenii au creat Iadul, ei au ales sa sufere, si tot ei decid de bunavoie daca vor sa traiasca acolo o vesnicie sau vor sa se intoarca la Dumnezeu unde le este bine. Pentru ca Dumnezeu vrea ca toata creatia Sa sa traiasca binele, dar nu-l impune nimanui. Este ca si cum eu v-as intinde un castron cu o mancare extrem de buna dar dvs. o refuzati preferand sa mancati resturi si sa fiti toata ziua flamand. Eu va pot zice ca daca nu mancati mancarea pe care v-o dau veti flamanzi dar daca dvs. preferati sa flamanziti refuzand mancarea, nu se poate zice ca am eu nevoie ca oamenii sa flamanzeasca ci dimpotriva, eu va astept non-stop cu vasul cu mancare buna in caz ca la un moment dat va saturati de atata flamanzeala si veniti sa mancati. Daca insa intre timp ati murit de foame, pai dupa ce ati murit, degeaba am eu mancarea ca dvs. nu mai puteti manca.

Am inteles, ce ai scris e o combinatie de idei personale cu idei biblice, personal le gasesc ilogice, dar nu asta conteaza....as vrea sa stiu daca accepti posibilitatea ca tot ce crezi tu poate fi fals sau macar interpretat gresit?

[Raziel]

În prealabil postat de cipri85

A lui Adam si Eva datorata pacatului original si a faptului ca nu si-au recunoscut greseala, nu s-au pocait, nu si-au constientizat greseala. Intr-un post anterior afirmam ca omul s-a dat singur afara din Rai. Omul a iesit singur din comuniunea cu Dumnezeu si ales moartea atunci cand a incalcat recomandarea lui Dumnezeu de a nu gusta dintr-un anumit rod care mancat ii va aduce moartea. Dumnezeu n-a facut altceva decat a dovedit ca este drept si ca respecta libertatea si vointa omului. Ca urmare pana la venirea Mantuitorului si Jertfa sa pe Sf. Cruce(cata iubire are Dumnezeu pentru om, pentru o fiinta care in permanenta i-a nesocotit invatatura si poruncile, pentru un razavratit si chiar luptator impotriva Lui) omul a fost privat de comuniunea cu Dummnezeu in Imparatia Cerurilor.

Deci pana la urma ce cautau oamenii drepti in iad???

[cipri85]

În prealabil postat de tara tara vrem ostas

In primul rand nu exista nici o atestare istorica a lui Hristos.Mahomed este atestat ca persoana istorica.

Nu mai spune. Frate auzit-ai matale de Iosif Flaviu? Daca n-ai auzit iaca cine ii personajul asta: provenit din familia regala a Israelului(urmas al macabeilor), preot al Templului din Ierusalim, comandantul militar al Galileii unde in timpul revoltei evreilor impotriva Romei este capturat de romani. Ca urmare a faptului ca le proroceste Flaviilor accederea la tronul Romei prorocie care se si implineste dobandeste statutul de cetatean roman si de protejat al imparatului. A scris o opera vasta fiind considerat cel mai mare istoric al antichitatii.

Iaca ce spune Iosif Flaviu in Antichitatile Iudaice((XVIII, 3, 3) despre Hristos:

"În acel timp a trăit Iisus un om înţelept care era făcător de minuni, învăţător al oamenilor care primesc bucuros bucuroşi adevărul. El a tras la sine pe mulţi Iudei şi păgâni. El fost Mesia. Şi când Pilat în urma pârii fruntaşilor noştri L-a osândit la răstignire cei care-l iubiseră mai înainte nu s-au lepădat de el, căci a treia zi li s-a arătat din nou, viu, precum prezisese despre elaceasta şi multe alte lucruri minunate dumnezeşti proorocii. Şi nici acum nu a încetat neamul acela care se numesc după el creştini."

Iar in Antichitatile iudaice (XX, 9, 1) acelasi istoric vorbeste despre uci*derea lui Iacob, "frate al lui Iisus Hristos":

“Acest Ananus mai tânăr care a preluat înalta preoţie, era un om cu un caracter neruşinat şi impertinent, el era deasemenea din partida saducheilor, care erau foarte rigizi când îi judecau pe vinovaţi, cei mai rigizi dintre toţi evreii” Iosif flaviu işi continuă relatarea spunănd că Ananus ” a comvocat judecătorii Sanhedrinului şi a adus înaintea lor un bărbat pe nume Iacov, fratele lui Iisus care era numit Hristosul şi pe câşiva alţii. El I-a acuzat că au încălcat legea şi I-a condamnat să fie ucişi cu pietre”.

A nu se intelege ca Iacob a fost fratele de sange a lui Iisus. In ebraica o limba saraca in cuvinte se folosete acelasi termen("ah") pentru toate gradele de rudenie: frate bun, frate vitreg, veri, unchi, matusa etc...
Se stie ca Maica Domnului a fost singurul copil al lui Ioachim si Ana; si, totusi, este numita sora altei Marii, care era sotia lui Cleopa (Ioan 19, 25). In realitate, deci, aceasta Maria era vara primara a Maicii Domnului, sau matusa ei. Iacob a fost varul Domnului si fiul Mariei sotia lui Cleopa numita in alte locuri: "Maria lui Iacob, si a lui Iosif" (Matei 27, 56; Marcu 15, 40).
Alte exemple: Avraam era unchiul lui Lot, iar el nepot de frate si se numeau "frati " sau " rude" (Facerea 11, 27; 12, 5 ; 13, 8; 14, 14-16); apoi, Iacob, nepotul lui Avraam, s-a casatorit cu verisoarele lui - surorile Lia si Rahela - fiicele lui Laban, nepot de frate lui Avraam, frate cu Nahor, si se numeau "frati" (Facerea 11, 27; 29,15-28). De ase*menea, Eliazar si Kis erau frati; si fiicele lui Eleazar s-au casatorit cu fiii lui Kis, cu care erau veri, dar se numeau " frati" sau rude cu ele (I Paralipom. 23, 22)


Iertare pentru paranteza dar am considerat-o necesara pentru a nu creea confuzii.

În prealabil postat de tara tara vrem ostas

Nu ma intereseaza ce fel de inger a fost cel care a intemeiat islamul.Toate religiile sustin intr-o masura sau alta ca sunt prin revelatie divina.. Ce te face sa crezi ca, canalul crestin e de la sursa Dumnezeului adevarat?Evreii si religia iudaica nu cred lucrul acesta si unul din argumentele pe care il aduc e Deuteronom 13:1-5.

Frate e o vorba: "popa nu canta a doua oara pentru o baba surda". In postarile anterioare m-am explicat de ce cred ca singurul crestinismul isi are cu adevarat originea in divinitate iar restul religiilor le consider surogate. Daca te intereseaza pune mana si citeste.

Cand sustii ceva sus si tare ar trebuii sa fii constient de ceea ce sustii. Nu m-ai lamurit asa ca imi mentin intrebarile:
Cum se numea ingerul care a intemeiat islamul? Era inger de lumina sau drac(pot sa se prefaca a fi ingeri de lumina)? Au fost martori la minunea aceasta aparitiei ingerului, a dictarii Coranului(Hristos a facut minuni in vazul tuturor, imagineaza-ti o mana uscaat, atrofiata care prinde viata, un slabanog/ paralitic de zeci de ani atrofiat schilod care isi revine)? Este veridica intamplarea? Mahomed a vazut un inger sau suferea de halucinatii. Este credibil un om imoral, care traia(desfrana) cu sotia stapanului sau incalcand asfel legea naturala?

În prealabil postat de tara tara vrem ostas

Ai sa regreti ziua cand ai spus asta.O sa iti amintesti de ea ca ziua in care ai inceput sa iti pui intrebarile.

Sa nu-ti faci procese de constiinta pentru aceasta... Chiar crezi ca-ti voi citi elucrubatiile copy paste-uite de pe diverse site-uri gnostice sau atee?
Omule Biblia e "intarita" atat prin descoperirile arheologice cat si prin scrierile unor istorici. Sa nu mai vorbim de implinirea prorociilor VT si NT. Ti-as recomanda sa incepi cu explicatiile, introducerile IPS Anania la fiecare capitol al Bibliei(nu necesita efort mare, sunt doar cateva pagini la inceputul fiecarui capitol). Sunt magistrale si perfect documentate.
Puneti mana si cititi istorie adevarata si mai lasati copy paste-ul de pe site-uri fabricate.