PsiCop

Just curious ... what is your documentary evidence for this?

The proof for this can be obtained from the books 'Jesus lived in India' , written by a team of Western scholars and archaeologists and ' Hinduism and Christianity' by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar( the founder of the Art of Living Foundation).[/quote]

Correction: Jesus Lived In India was not written by a "team" of anything. It was written by a German, Holger Kersten. (Amazon link). Kersten offers not one speck of direct evidence. He merely infers this mission to India, mainly from the Acts of Thomas; notably this book is not about Jesus but about (you guessed it!) the apostle Thomas. (See how that works?)

As for Sri sri yada yada and the rest of these hippie gurus ... I have no idea who they are and I doubt any have any credentials as a historian who could back up any of these claims with evidence.

noeticcenter

PsiCop wrote: "As for Sri sri yada yada and the rest of these hippie gurus ... I have no idea who they are and I doubt any have any credentials as a historian who could back up any of these claims with evidence".

Noetic Comments:

It is a question of AUTHORITY. These Sri Sri's have their RIGHT to beleive what they want. But, they have NO AUTHORITY to do that. It is their flimsy, sleazy fancies, probably psychedelics related since most of them are on sub-nutritional proetein deficient diets of psychedelic natural produce. Also their habitat of higher elevation with less oxygen (rarified) and more ozone content
adds to the delirium. All the same, they are by and large extremely honest, decent and sincere folks of learning especially in Sanskrit, and ardent seekers with ahimsa (non-violence) almost encoded into their genome.

Still as the Prophet Isaiah (Is. chapter 17 vs 9) around 800 BC spoke: " The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.." People can trust every human fancy, but not the AUTHORITY of the OT & NT Scriptures!!

Noetic

PsiCop

Actually, the Scriptures have no "AUTHORITY" as history. They are examplars of ancient belief, nothing more. They were certainly NOT written by credentialed historians and therefore CANNOT rationally be taken as "history" as we know it.

noeticcenter

[PsiCop;28018][quote=noeticcenter;27969]It is a question of AUTHORITY. These Sri Sri's have their RIGHT to beleive what they want. But, they have NO AUTHORITY to do that. It is their flimsy, sleazy fancies, probably psychedelics related since most of them are on sub-nutritional proetein deficient diets of psychedelic natural produce. Also their habitat of higher elevation with less oxygen (rarified) and more ozone content
adds to the delirium. All the same, they are by and large extremely honest, decent and sincere folks of learning especially in Sanskrit, and ardent seekers with ahimsa (non-violence) almost encoded into their genome.

Still as the Prophet Isaiah (Is. chapter 17 vs 9) around 800 BC spoke: " The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.." People can trust every human fancy, but not the AUTHORITY of the OT & NT Scriptures!!

PsiCop (?) wrote:
Actually, the Scriptures have no "AUTHORITY" as history. They are examplars of ancient belief, nothing more. They were certainly NOT written by credentialed historians and therefore CANNOT rationally be taken as "history" as we know it.
_____

Noetic Response:

You either did not care to read my post or misread it. You are only repeating what I wrote:" The Bible is not a History book", but whenever it refers to historic events they have been found accurate and reliable. Most of modern archeology have been benefited by Biblical references.

Have you ever, even once, read the Bible as you read any other IMPORTANT book from page to page, cover to page? If not, you either put up with its claims or shut up. It looks like you have not read much of any history either.

The claims of the Book are completely different from any notion you can ever have or construct in your mind!! Read my previous post for what its central theme is. It is a PERSON not a PRINCIPLE or PHILOSOPHY or SCIENCE. Judge the BOOK by that PERSON and His unique 'out-of-the-world' Mission.

Noetic

noeticcenter

[PsiCop;28018][noeticcenter;27969]It is a question of AUTHORITY. These Sri Sri's have their RIGHT to beleive what they want. But, they have NO AUTHORITY to do that. It is their flimsy, sleazy fancies, probably psychedelics related since most of them are on sub-nutritional proetein deficient diets of psychedelic natural produce. Also their habitat of higher elevation with less oxygen (rarified) and more ozone content
adds to the delirium. All the same, they are by and large extremely honest, decent and sincere folks of learning especially in Sanskrit, and ardent seekers with ahimsa (non-violence) almost encoded into their genome.

Still as the Prophet Isaiah (Is. chapter 17 vs 9) around 800 BC spoke: " The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.." People can trust every human fancy, but not the AUTHORITY of the OT & NT Scriptures!!

Actually, the Scriptures have no "AUTHORITY" as history. They are examplars of ancient belief, nothing more. They were certainly NOT written by credentialed historians and therefore CANNOT rationally be taken as "history" as we know it.
___________________
Noetic Response

April 25, 08

Noeticcenter

Bible: Purported Flaws

In all these comments there is a fundamental error of judging the Bible- a collection of books penned by over 40 writers of diverse backgrounds of priests, prophets, princes, poets, philosophers, physicians, farmers, fishermen, government officials and so on, in three different continents over a period of about 3,500 years- for what it does not stand for and totally ignoring what it essentially schematize. It is NOT a book of science, or philosophy or psychology or astronomy or law or morals or ethics or religion, though occasionally it does refer to all these accurately and reliably.

The central subject of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation is ONE SINGULAR PERSON – the Messiah. The central mission of the Messiah is REDEMPTION. The WAY of Redemption is the same in the Old and the New Testaments. To be effective, a testament involves the death of the Testator. The DEATH here is from the JUDGMENT of ‘Capital Punishment’. The Judgment is pronounced by the Creator Testator on a WILLFULLY rebellious creation. The Creator Testator takes the judgment upon Himself. The judgment is CANCELLED for ever through the RESURRECTION of the Creator Testator, to those who WILLINGLY accept it. Now, this is the Bible. It is in representative forms in the Old and the actualities in the New Testaments.

Note: A substitute term for Testament is Blood Covenant. Covenant alone will not do it.

Noetic

PsiCop

Not at all. I did, in fact, read it. That you do not like my response does NOT demonstrate that I did not read it.

This claim is often made by believers, but is not true at all. Archaeology is finding almost nothing that backs up the Bible as history. There are many works on this subject, one of the more significant being The Bible Unearthed by two Israeli archaeologists.

One of the most obvious examples of how the Bible is NOT "history" is in the Exodus account. Egypt is perhaps the "birthplace" of archaeology as it's now practiced, having been plumbed since the late 18th century. Its language was deciphered in the early 19th century, moreover. In over two centuries of intense study, NOT ONE SPECK of evidence has EVER been produced that even ONE thing in the Exodus ever actually happened.

Actually, yes I have. I've read it in several languages, including the original Greek of the New Testament and the Old Testament in the Septuagint. You have no rational basis for accusing me of NOT having done so. It is absolutely juvenile for you to level this accusation at me. Having said that, it's a very common one for believers to throw around. That so many believers do it, does not, however, make it a valid objection. You might want to read about this and several other common believers' objections before you throw any more at me and risk looking even more foolish and irrational.

Your demand that I "shut up" is noted, but dismissed as childish (as if you have any power to "shut me up" in any event). As for my not having studied history, I do have a degree in the subject (University of Connecticut, class of 1986). Please identify the origin of your sheepskin.

First, the Bible is not "one" book, it is many (27 in the occidental New Testament, and a varying number in the Old Testament depending on one's church affiliation). I'm not sure why you would speak of it as one book when it is obviously not, but there you go.

Second, every book ever written is "different" from all others. Only Xeroxed books are identical to each other. This claim, therefore, is nonsensical.

I have no idea what this means. If you wish me to decipher it, you'll first have to begin making sense.

PsiCop

The books of the Bible do not collectively "schematize" anything. (Not that you could define this word, but that's quite beside the point.) The idea that they were ALL written with a single collective mission in mind (if that's what you mean by "schematize"), is nonsense. They were not all written at the same time or by the same people, so this is impossible.

The Bible does NOT convey ANY of these things "accurately" or "reliably." It is factually wrong on MANY counts. Many people such as you like to repeat this, like a mantra, but that many people believe it, does NOT make it so, nor can endless repetition of a falsehood make it suddenly have veracity.

Wrong. The Bible books were written over a long period of time, from the middle of the last millennium BCE to the 2nd century CE. They do NOT speak of any single person, place, or thing, since these authors lived across a long span of time and could not have written according to any single referrent.

"Redemption" ... from what, exactly?

Wrong. The Old Testament does not speak of "redemption" at all. It speaks of worship and honoring YHWH. The New Testament deals with redemption but does so in several ways, not all of which are compatible with one another.

Why? Who passed that law, and when was it signed?

Really? We are judged to be worthy only of "death" because we "willfully rebelled"? What about, say, a 5-month-old baby ... does s/he merit "death"? If so, how is it even possible for an infant to have "willfully" done ANYTHING at all?

Why? Wouldn't it have been FAR more efficient, instead, for him simply never to have made that "judgement" in the first place?

Again with the "willingly" stuff ... but you have yet to demonstrate that "willfulness" even comes into play in the first place.

Gibberish.

Wrong. A "testament" is a testimony, or evidence of something.

If blood is so important, you should, first, provide evidence of its importance; then, having done so, you would have to explain WHY it is that it's important. Only THEN can we even begin an intelligent conversation about the nature of "blood covenants."