New Book By Deepak Chopra

[Steven]

I will do some research tonight.... from the board... If I can I will PM you the link to the discussion....

maybe you can start up a new thread so we can re-tread the stuff.... I'm open to discussing any of it Phee.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

OK, look...

Prove to me that Jesus was NOT that which Christians beleive him to be and is fact the person/man that this man claims him to be.

Or get this man to do it. Except, get him to do it without all his referances to Hindu core beleifs.

[Steven]

everyone does this, steven - yourself included. they're called "examples". we use the quotes we choose, in order to make our point. if you're in a debate with someone, are you going to choose examples that are contradictory to your point? i don't think so - if you did, you'd be shooting yourself in the foot. it sounds like your issue with this is that his examples go against what you believe, and therefore, aren't valid. you've spent a great deal of time using this very type of supported argument, expecting people to refute your ascertations. in this case, how would you refute his?

so then what are we to do Mike?

somebody has to choose. I did. you did. were back to square one - which is OK with me, really. Personally I think I use a great deal more detail than he does in setting up my points, and Im definately willing to be wrong or place myself in a scenario where Im forced to contend with something.

[Steven]

OK, look...

Prove to me that Jesus was NOT that which Christians beleive him to be and is fact the person/man that this man claims him to be.

Or get this man to do it. Except, get him to do it without all his referances to Hindu core beleifs.

see now you went and done it......

[phee]

maybe you can start up a new thread so we can re-tread the stuff.... I'm open to discussing any of it Phee.

Will do...

[Steven]

Will do...

and just you remember who your dealin with here Mr....

you know Hun Hee says Im the sole enlightner of DGN Darkenss, walk in THEM shoes for a while Johnny....

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

but she also says i am Mr. Negativity.

[phee]

but she also says i am Mr. Negativity.

Steven seems to call me Johnny when he talks to me.... I have never figured out why....

[torn asunder]

well lets pick that theory apart a little bit.

what I (Steven) beleive has led me to a specific lifestyle - one that includes a great deal of personal risk and investment of time and energy and resources into other people, and this has been going on for years.

because of what I beleive I am often asked to assist others who have gotten lost - especially when it comes to marital issues and issues of walking in faith

because of what I beleive I have very healthy interpersonal relationships that continue to grow

because of what I beleive aI have been fortunate enough to be welcomed in and out of many different types fo social circles

because of what I beleive I am not the kind of man who vascillates, ever

because of what I beleive I am a leader, and I am respectable despite my own shortcomings

.............. ok so how much of that consitutes cop out like behaviour?

dude, i seriously think you're intentionally trying to miss my point, now...

the "copout" comment was related to being involved in a discussion/debate, and saying, "well, i dismiss your points, and stick with mine, because that's what i believe.( i've actually proven out to someone (if a=b and b=c, then a=c) using their own words that they were contradicting themselves and proving themselves wrong, and had that person say, "well, that's what i believe, so i don't care what you say"!) (i'm only using this as an example - not saying anyone here is doing that, at this point...)

everything you've written in your entire post has absolutely nothing to do with the point i'm getting at - it's entirely irrelevant!

nowhere did i say that your faith, and the way it leads you to behave, was a copout. please stop looking for insult where there is none intended...

[Steven]

Steven seems to call me Johnny when he talks to me.... I have never figured out why....

Because I call Mike Jack. I dont want confusion.

[Steven]

dude, i seriously think you're intentionally trying to miss my point, now...

the "copout" comment was related to being involved in a discussion/debate, and saying, "well, i dismiss your points, and stick with mine, because that's what i believe.( i've actually proven out to someone (if a=b and b=c, then a=c) using their own words that they were contradicting themselves and proving themselves wrong, and had that person say, "well, that's what i believe, so i don't care what you say"!) (i'm only using this as an example - not saying anyone here is doing that, at this point...)

everything you've written in your entire post has absolutely nothing to do with the point i'm getting at - it's entirely irrelevant!

nowhere did i say that your faith, and the way it leads you to behave, was a copout. please stop looking for insult where there is none intended...

because it felt like one implied, the way you posted it.

but Ill receive the correction. We've got bigger fish to fry...

[Steven]

but she also says i am Mr. Negativity.

then I need a new moniker for you Dude, because Jack and Johnny are obviously allready taken......hmmm

[torn asunder]

because it felt like one implied, the way you posted it.

but Ill receive the correction. We've got bigger fish to fry...

it's cool - sorry i wasn't more clear... i'm trying to be!

[torn asunder]

and btw, phee - i have no issue with any of that info being posted in here - it's entirely why i posted this... to discuss, and explore, this topic! no need for a new thread, in my opinion!

[Steven]

cool cool - im not bent.

despite our past shit I do offer you this: (I never bicker with people I do not value)

[torn asunder]

Or get this man to do it. Except, get him to do it without all his referances to Hindu core beleifs.

do you dismiss the hindu parts of his argument because you're unfamiliar with/don't understand them, or is it that you personally feel that they have no place in a discussion about christianity? i'm just curious, because a lot of times, i find correlations within other religions...

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I'm pretty familiar with Chopra as he is one of the few guys around that actively engages in rational debates withs the scientific community and a proponent of various metaphysical claims and tries very hard to base his arguments heavily on reason and research rather than "from the air" style reasoning. He gets a lot of play in the popular scientific community lecture circuit and publications.

The process or idea of "rescuing" Jesus or the bible by trying to reconstruct what it, or he "really meant" is an ancient concept. Re-imagining or reconstructing the image for each new generation is a interesting and endless subject, but definitely nothing new.

The current issue of Skeptic has a debate between he and Michael Shermer (probably fourth in the list of well known mystic-debunker types) just under Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins and Houdini) and i've read several reviews about this particular book. My energy level isnt quite high enough to read it, but the long reviews I've read of it make his argument clear.

Its always a question of probability. We can get pretty close to 100%, 99.9999-% but there is always some chance we are wrong, are hallucinating, are having a dream, misremembered, were confused, are just nuts, etc. Is the sky generally blue or at least what i personally consider to be blue? (assuming no clouds or other obscuring features) Yes I'm pretty much 100% sure, but to say there is absolutely no possibility , however remote , that I'm wrong, is foolish.

There's a long list of educated scholars that debate either the entire, or at least some parts of the bible as being fabricated or misquoted or otherwise confused or misconstrued as it relates to Jesus' "actual" teachings. If you want "absolute truth" about Jesus you have to just make a leap of faith and assume your right, since the evidence is not present as yet. The best we can do is try to weed out what clearly is not a first century teaching and winnow things down to what is most likely. Scholarly groups like The Jesus Seminar (and plenty of others) have long been working on such research.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

do you dismiss the hindu parts of his argument because you're unfamiliar with/don't understand them, or is it that you personally feel that they have no place in a discussion about christianity? i'm just curious, because a lot of times, i find correlations within other religions...

I want him to prove my God is not what I think it is within the context of my religion. Not his.

[torn asunder]

I want him to prove my God is not what I think it is within the context of my religion. Not his.

i see - thanks for clearing that up!

[Steven]

I want him to prove my God is not what I think it is within the context of my religion. Not his.

I think that was reasonable.

[Steven]

The process or idea of "rescuing" Jesus or the bible by trying to reconstruct what it, or he "really meant" is an ancient concept. Re-imagining or reconstructing the image for each new generation is a interesting and endless subject, but definitely nothing new.

Agreed. Perhaps this is the source of my cynicism, because often these sorts of reconstructions are presented as new light....when in reality they are not. Thats a bit of an trigger for me personally

Its always a question of probability. We can get pretty close to 100%, 99.9999-% but there is always some chance we are wrong, are hallucinating, are having a dream, misremembered, were confused, are just nuts, etc. Is the sky generally blue or at least what i personally consider to be blue? (assuming no clouds or other obscuring features) Yes I'm pretty much 100% sure, but to say there is absolutely no possibility , however remote , that I'm wrong, is foolish.

Agreed. Personally, i love the fact that a beleif in Jesus as a true Messianic or Divine figure, either pro or on - neither approach can be proven. I also personally beelive he wanted it this way - he wants followers who are willing to take the risk of a leap.

There's a long list of educated scholars that debate either the entire, or at least some parts of the bible as being fabricated or misquoted or otherwise confused or misconstrued as it relates to Jesus' "actual" teachings. If you want "absolute truth" about Jesus you have to just make a leap of faith and assume your right, since the evidence is not present as yet. The best we can do is try to weed out what clearly is not a first century teaching and winnow things down to what is most likely. Scholarly groups like The Jesus Seminar (and plenty of others) have long been working on such research.

Agreed.

Perhaps Phee or somebody else will submit something that will truly cause me to stop and take a 2nd look. In terms of "clearly" recognizing first century teachiing I think a degree of caution and a nod of respect is warranted there, because nothing is truely "clear" with a creature as ccyclical as human beings are.

[phee]

As promised... from

This thread

The scriptures are real what exactly?... and are you talking about the scriptures cannonized by the Catholic Church? And if you are refering to the bible, which bible?

here are some of the ones just in English:

* Abbreviated Bible - TAB - 1971, eliminates duplications, includes the Apocrypha

* American Standard Version - ASV - 1901, a.k.a. Standard American Edition, Revised Version, the American version of the Holy Bible, Revised Version

* American Translation (Beck) - AAT - 1976

* American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed) - SGAT - 1931

* Amplified Bible - AB - 1965, includes explanation of words within text

* Aramaic Bible (Targums) - ABT - 1987, originally translated from the Hebrew into the Aramaic

* Aramaic New Covenant - ANCJ - 1996, a translation and transliteration of the New Covenant

* Authentic New Testament - ANT - 1958

* Barclay New Testament - BNT - 1969

* Basic Bible - TBB - 1950, based upon a vocabulary of 850 words

* Bible Designed to Be Read as Literature - BDRL - 1930, stresses literary qualities of the Bible, includes the Apocrypha

* Bible Reader - TBR - 1969, an interfaith version, includes the Apocrypha

* Cassirer New Testament - CNT - 1989

* Centenary Translation of the New Testament - CTNT - 1924, one of the few versions translated solely by a woman

* Common English New Testament - CENT - 1865

* Complete Jewish Bible - CJB - 1989, a Messianic Jewish translation

* Concordant Literal New Testament - CLNT - 1926

* Confraternity of Christian Doctrine Translation - CCDT - 1953, includes the Apocrypha

* Contemporary English Version - CEV - 1992, includes Psalms and Proverbs

* Coptic Version of the New Testament - CVNT - 1898, based on translations from northern Egypt

* Cotton Patch Version - CPV - 1968, based on American ideas and Southern US culture, only contains Paul's writings

* Coverdale Bible - TCB - 1540, includes the Apocrypha

* Darby Holy Bible - DHB - 1923

* Dartmouth Bible - TDB - 1961, an abridgment of the King James Version, includes the Apocrypha

* De Nyew Testament in Gullah - NTG - 2005

* Dead Sea Scrolls Bible - DSSB - 1997, translated from Dead Sea Scrolls documents, includes the Apocrypha

* Documents of the New Testament - DNT - 1934

* Douay-Rheims Bible - DRB - 1899

* Emphasized Bible - EBR - 1959, contains signs of emphasis for reading

* Emphatic Diaglott - EDW - 1942

* English Standard Version - ESV - 2001, a revision of the Revised Standard Version

* English Version for the Deaf - EVD - 1989, a.k.a. Easy-to-Read Version, designed to meet the special needs of the deaf

* English Version of the Polyglott Bible - EVPB - 1858, the English portion of an early Bible having translations into several languages

* Geneva Bible - TGB - 1560, the popular version just prior to the translation of the King James Version, includes the Apocrypha

* Godbey Translation of the New Testament - GTNT - 1905

* God's Word - GW - 1995, a.k.a Today's Bible Translation

* Holy Bible in Modern English - HBME - 1900

* Holy Bible, Revised Version - HBRV - 1885, an official revision of the King James Version which was not accepted at the time

* Holy Scriptures (Harkavy) - HSH - 1951

* Holy Scriptures (Leeser) - HSL - 1905

* Holy Scriptures (Menorah) - HSM - 1973, a.k.a. Jewish Family Bible

* Inclusive Version - AIV - 1995, stresses equality of the sexes and physically handicapped, includes Psalms

* Inspired Version - IV - 1867, a revision of the King James Version

* Interlinear Bible (Green) - IB - 1976, side-by-side Hebrew/Greek and English

* International Standard Version - ISV - 1998

* Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) - TJB - 1966, includes the Apocrypha

* Jerusalem Bible (Koren) - JBK - 1962, side-by-side Hebrew and English

* Jewish Bible for Family Reading - JBFR - 1957, includes the Apocrypha

* John Wesley New Testament - JWNT - 1755, a correction of the King James Version

* King James Version - KJV - 1611, a.k.a. Authorized Version, originally included the Apocrypha

* Kleist-Lilly New Testament - KLNT - 1956

* Knox Translation - KTC - 1956, includes the Apocrypha

* Lamsa Bible - LBP - 1957, based on Peshitta manuscripts

* Lattimore New Testament - LNT - 1962, a literal translation

* Letchworth Version in Modern English - LVME - 1948

* Living Bible - LB - 1971, a paraphrase version

* McCord's New Testament Translation of the Everlasting Gospel - MCT - 1989

* Message - TM - 1993, a.k.a. New Testament in Contemporary English, a translation in the street language of the day, includes Psalms and Proverbs

* Modern Reader's Bible - MRB - 1923, stresses literary qualities, includes the Apocrypha

* Modern Speech New Testament - MSNT - 1902, an attempt to present the Bible in effective, intelligible English

* Moffatt New Translation - MNT - 1922

* New American Bible - NAB - 1987, includes the Apocrypha

* New American Standard Version - NAS - 1977

* New Berkeley Version in Modern English - NBV - 1967

* New Century Version - NCV - 1987

* New English Bible - NEB - 1970, includes the Apocrypha

* New Evangelical Translation - NET - 1992, a translation aimed at missionary activity

* New International Version - NIV - 1978

* New Jerusalem Bible - NJB - 1985, includes the Apocrypha

* New JPS Version - NJPS - 1988

* New King James Version - NKJ - 1990

* New Life Version - NLV - 1969, a translation designed to be useful wherever English is used as a second language

* New Living Translation - NLT - 1996, a dynamic-equivalence translation

* New Millenium Bible - NMB - 1999, a contemporary English translation

* New Revised Standard Version - NRS - 1989, the authorized revision of the Revised Standard Version

* New Testament in Plain English - WPE - 1963, a version using common words only

* New Testament: An Understandable Version - NTUV - 1995, a limited edition version

* New Translation (Jewish) - NTJ - 1917

* New World Translation - NWT - 1984

* Noli New Testament - NNT - 1961, the first and only book of its kind by an Eastern Orthodox translator at the time of its publication

* Norlie's Simplified New Testament - NSNT - 1961, includes Psalms

* Original New Testament - ONT - 1985, described by publisher as a radical translation and reinterpretation

* Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha - OJBC - 1996, an Orthodox version containing Rabbinic Hebrew terms

* People's New Covenant - PNC - 1925, a version translated from the meta-physical standpoint

* Phillips Revised Student Edition - PRS - 1972

* Recovery Version - RcV - 1991, a reference version containing extensive notes

* Reese Chronological Bible - RCB - 1980, an arrangement of the King James Version in chronological order

* Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible - SNB - 1976, a version whose concern is the true name and titles of the creator and his son

* Restored New Testament - PRNT - 1914, a version giving an interpretation according to ancient philosophy and psychology

* Revised English Bible - REB - 1989, a revision of the New English Bible

* Revised Standard Version - RSV - 1952, a revision of the American Standard Version

* Riverside New Testament - RNT - 1923, written in the living English language of the time of the translation

* Sacred Scriptures, Bethel Edition - SSBE - 1981, the sacred name and the sacred titles and the name of Yahshua restored to the text of the Bible

* Scholars Version - SV - 1993, a.k.a. Five Gospels; contains evaluations of academics of what are, might be, and are not, the words of Jesus; contains the four gospels and the Gospel of Thomas

* Scriptures (ISR) - SISR - 1998, traditional names replaced by Hebraic ones and words with pagan sources replaced

* Septuagint - LXX - c. 200 BCE, the earliest version of the Old Testament scriptures, includes the Apocrypha

* Shorter Bible - SBK - 1925, eliminates duplications

* Spencer New Testament - SCM - 1941

* Stone Edition of the Tanach - SET - 1996, side-by-side Hebrew and English

* Swann New Testament - SNT - 1947, no chapters, only paragraphs, with verses numbered consecutively from Matthew to Revelation

* Today's English New Testament - TENT - 1972

* Today's English Version - TEV - 1976, a.k.a. Good News Bible

* Twentieth Century New Testament - TCNT - 1904

* Unvarnished New Testament - UNT - 1991, the principal sentence elements kept in the original order of the Greek

* Versified Rendering of the Complete Gospel Story - VRGS - 1980, the gospel books written in poetic form, contains the four gospels

* Westminster Version of the Sacred Scriptures - WVSS - 1929

* Wiclif Translation - TWT - 1380, a very early version translated into English

* William Tindale Newe Testament - WTNT - 1989, an early version with spelling and punctuation modernized

* William Tyndale Translation - WTT - 1530, early English version, includes the Pentateuch

* Williams New Testament - WNT - 1937, a translation of the thoughts of the writers with a reproduction of their diction and style

* Word Made Fresh - WMF - 1988, a paraphrase with humour and familiar names and places for those who have no desire to read the Bible

* Worrell New Testament - WAS - 1904

* Wuest Expanded Translation - WET - 1961, intended as a comparison to, or commentary on, the standard translations

* Young's Literal Translation, Revised Edition - YLR - 1898, a strictly literal translation

and

It is actually the exact opposite... it is extremely human, to the point where there is nothing but the humans that have handled the text... you said that "the God described, the inttent" I will not disagree with this (given all of the assumptions about the existance of a Christian God) But with all of the non-god hands that have manipulated these texts over the years... how can we as humans have any idea at all what this intent was?

If I were doing a book report for collage... and in the book report I stated something as "true" lets just say that in 5000 B.C. fish could talk or something silly... then when asked where the information came from I said well... I got it from a book that got the information from another book that was edited by a politician about 500 years ago that he origianally had traslated from German by a scribe, who got it from a book that was written 500 year before that he traslated from Latin, that was updated by by another statesman before that, shortly after it was traslated from Greek, and that Greek book was based upon a bunch of letters that were copied by other statesmen that copied them from other scribes who worked for local kings in the area, who then copied them from someone writing in the "vien" of an author who copied them from someone else... who heard a story spoken from another who heard it from another person, who heard it from another person, who said it was absolutely true.... so it must be true because nothing could have happened to the orignal "gist" of this truth overtime given all these circumstances, because everyone whom this fact passed through... was totally legit... My teacher would kind of look at me like I was on crack

So in the case of "what God said"... well It may have said something.... but after that process.... how can we actually say with any certainty... what the intent was? God in this Christian Universe may be trustworthy... but as History has shown, the people that have access to his message are just that... people.... and people lie, change, and alter the truth... which crushes the original meaning....

And from what my studies have shown is this... it is an amazing peace of literature... and can hold many truths in it's pages... but these pages (at this point anyway) are written by men.... and they are the truths of these men... I study the bible the same way I would study say... the Code of Hamurabi or the works of Makaveli, these are not works of Fiction... And I am not saying the bible is either, it is a collection of the works of men... but I cannot be objective at all If I give it more credibility or if it is more "special" anymore than I could the works of Confusios or Shakespeare... I would cease to be objective if I said but this writing deserves more or less scruteny because I am told that it is Divinely inspired... I could be told that my computer manual is Divinely inspired, but I still must read it as literature first....

you used the term "the word" but all of this makes it hard to tell who's word we are reading at this point

[crunchy_pickle (5)]

since we all love to talk about religion so much, i wanted to post this to get opinions. (i received it in an email from deepak chopra's website the other day...)

here's an excerpt from the book...

anyone have any thoughts on this? (if you have the time, please read the 4 short pages in the "excerpts" link) i’ll add mine in a bit, but suffice to say, i agree with everything i’ve read so far…

I think there is one Jesus, and one false Jesus. The first Jesus is the historical figure that we all know and love (or hate in some cases or just don't believe in at all). The 2nd Jesus is the Holy Roman Cross ideals that followed the ascension of Emperor Constantine, and spread to the world both in a structured religious and structured government form.

This ideal was passed to the early colonists through generations and was established in America "The land of the free."

I believe a man will rise who knows more about people because he learns about life instead of money. That man will lead people away from the 2nd Jesus, and back to the 1st on the Last Day.

When Christ comes again, he won't be a human on Earth. Anyone who speaks otherwise should be very very cautious regarding heresy...

[phee]

Here is a good example of how the actual meaning or jist of the statements change from translation to translation...

And this is just in English keep in mind... not even taking into account the numerous times it has been translated from language to language

John 6:27:

• “On him God the Father has placed his seal of

approval” (NIV, TNIV).

• “. . . for on him God the Father has set the seal of his

authority” (REB).

• “. . . because God the Father has given him the right

to do so” (CEV).

• “For God the Father has sent me for that very purpose”

(NLT).

• “He and what he does are guaranteed by God the

Father to last” (The Message).

[phee]

And more

Romans 1:5.

• “Through him and for his name’s sake, we received

grace and apostleship to call people from among all the

Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith” (NIV).

• “Jesus was kind to me and chose me to be an apostle,

so that people of all nations would obey and have

faith” (CEV).

• “Through Christ, God has given us the privilege and

authority to tell Gentiles everywhere what God has

done for them, so that they will believe and obey him,

bringing glory to his name” (NLT).

• “. . . through whom we have received grace and apostleship

to bring about the obedience of faith for the

sake of his name among all the nations” (ESV).