Spirituality
09 Jul 07
12 Jul 07
7 edits
Originally posted by rwingettNotice I said in my post that Jesus referred to the Bible and not specifically the NT? Of coarse the NT had not been written. I did not specify OT from NT when I referred to the Bible in the hopes that one might have enough common sense to understand what I was saying. Here is what I was saying. Jesus quoted from the written word of his day which was the Torah.
Jesus went around quoting from the Jewish Bible, or the Old Testament. The New Testament didn't exist in Jesus' time, so it was not physically possible for him to quote from it.
Matthew 4:4 "But Jesus answered and said, "It is written, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." (Speaking of Deut 8:3)
Matthew 4:7 "Jesus said to him, "It is written again, Thou shall not tempt the Lord thy God." (speaking of Deut 6:16)
Matthew 4:10 "Then said Jesus to him, "Get thee hence, Satan; for it is written, "Thou shall worship the Lord thy God, and him only will thou serve." (speaking of Deut 6:13)
Matthew 26:31 "Then said Jesus unto them, "All you shall be offended because of me this night; for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered abroad." (Speaking of Zech 13:7)
Mark 11:17 "And Jesus taught, saying to them, "Is it not written, My house will be called of all nations the house of prayer? But you have mede it into a den of theives" (in reference to Isaiah 56:7)
Luke 18:31 "Then Jesus took, unto him the 12, and said to them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished."
Luke 21:22 "For these be the days of vengence, that all things which are written may be fulfilled."
Mark 10:5 "And Jesus answered them, For the hardness of your hearts Moses wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause will a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife. And they two will be one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put assunder." (Speaking of Genesis 2:24)
Luke 16:31 "And he said to him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
John 5:45 "It is written in the prophets, And they will be all taught of God. Every man therefore that has heard, and has learned of the Father, comes to me." (Speaking of Isaiah 54:13)
John 8:26 "I have many things to say and to judge of you; but he that sent me is true, and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him."
This is just a taste, mind you. There are many, many more. Yep, no doubt about it. Jesus was just another one of those literalist fundi religious zealots that give you nightmares at night. He was like a walking Torah!!! So if we are to be his followers, are we not to do the same?
12 Jul 07
Originally posted by whodeyIn your previous post you said "Christ if the Bible." That concept is clearly a New Testament concept. Jesus is not mentioned in the Old Testament. So if you want to be a follower of Jesus, and do as he did, then become a Jew and read the Torah. Just like the Ebionites and the Essenes said, in order to follow Christ, one must become Jewish first.
Notice I said in my post that Jesus referred to the Bible and not specifically the NT? Of coarse the NT had not been written. I did not specify OT from NT when I referred to the Bible in the hopes that one might have enough common sense to understand what I was saying. Here is what I was saying. Jesus quoted from the written word of his day which was the ...[text shortened]... rah!!! So if we are to be his followers, are we not to do the same?
12 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettI suggest you refer to the hundreds of prophecies listed in the OT about the Messiah that even Christ said were made about him. What other form of reference would you like for someone who had not come into the material world as of yet?
In your previous post you said "Christ if the Bible." That concept is clearly a New Testament concept. Jesus is not mentioned in the Old Testament. So if you want to be a follower of Jesus, and do as he did, then become a Jew and read the Torah. Just like the Ebionites and the Essenes said, in order to follow Christ, one must become Jewish first.
12 Jul 07
Originally posted by whodeyThis whole prophecy thing is a real conversation killer. You should try a different angle.
I suggest you refer to the hundreds of prophecies listed in the OT about the Messiah that even Christ said were made about him. What other form of reference would you like for someone who had not come into the material world as of yet?
12 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioThen he is not a Christian. Even if he is called one does not make him one.
Well, there are other people -- present and past -- who do not think that a literal understanding of
this event is a requirement for Christianity. Bishop John Shelby Spong, former Bishop of the
Episcopal Diocese of Newark, New Jersey, would count as one of these people.
Nemesio
A literal death and resurrection is a fundamental of the Christian church, anything else would be lumped into the pile of Mormons or JW's that call themselves Christians when no one else does.
13 Jul 07
Originally posted by rwingettTell that to Jesus.
This whole prophecy thing is a real conversation killer. You should try a different angle.
John 5:46 "For had you believed Moses, you would have believed me; for he wrote of me."
No wonder it is a conversation killer. What Christ is saying is that the rejection of Moses and the rest of the prophets was really a rejection of God himself. Therefore, it matters little as to the evidences God has placed in front of you just as in the time of Christ when he healed people and raised them from the dead and even was raised from the dead himself, however, there were still those who did not believe. Throw it all out the window because the "proof" is not the issure, rather, the issue is the rejection of the God of the Bible for whatever reason. I have always believed that faith has less to do with the facts, rather, it has more to do with the condition of ones heart.
13 Jul 07
Originally posted by rwingettWell - yes and no. St. Paul certainly was the figurehead for universalising (catholicising!) Christianity, but he wasn't doing this on his own. Though with some early reluctance, Ss. Peter and John are recorded as having joined in (John went off to Antioch quite early on). Indeed, Paul's ministry to the Gentiles predates the destruction of the Temple by a decade or more (clear from the dating of the early epistles).
That's part of my point. Jesus was a Jew. Christianity itself (properly understood) is a sect of Judaism. We see this with some of the earliest proto-christian sects, like the Ebionites and the Essenes, who were Judaizing Christians. They maintained that in order to become a Christian, one must first convert to Judaism. It was Pauline theology, in the after ...[text shortened]... ion of the Temple in Jerusalem, that brought the final schism between Judaism and Christianity.
13 Jul 07
Originally posted by ryunixWhat you really mean is that even though he may fit the dictionary definition of the word "Christian" he doesn't fit the definition you use.
Then he is not a Christian. Even if he is called one does not make him one.
The only problem I have with that is that you should properly define any word that you wish to use with a non-dictionary definition or communication just falls to pieces.
A literal death and resurrection is a fundamental of the Christian church, anything else would be lumped into the pile of Mormons or JW's that call themselves Christians when no one else does.
It may interest you to know that a significant proportion of people who call themselves Christian (and I am not talking about Mormons here but members of all denominations), do not believe in some of what you would call fundamental beliefs.
For example I saw the results of a survey done in South Africa which said that about 30% of the people they surveyed who called themselves Christian did not believe in an afterlife.
13 Jul 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerI realize that Paul's ministry and the destruction of the Temple were not exactly contemporary events. But the destruction of the Temple gave a big boost to Paul's interpretation and helped hasten the schism between Judaism and the emergent Christian groups. From that point on, the Judaizing Christians were increasingly marginalized.
Well - yes and no. St. Paul certainly was the figurehead for universalising (catholicising!) Christianity, but he wasn't doing this on his own. Though with some early reluctance, Ss. Peter and John are recorded as having joined in (John went off to Antioch quite early on). Indeed, Paul's ministry to the Gentiles predates the destruction of the Temple by a decade or more (clear from the dating of the early epistles).
13 Jul 07
1 edit
It's not the dictionary definition of Christian, or even the cultural definition, but the Biblical one that matters. Redefining the term does nothing but play semantics, and make the term useless. And to be fair, the term has become so loaded with misconception, reinvention, and negative association that I spend a good deal of time explaining what it does and does not mean to my non-Christian friends.
The term only has meaning within the context of scripture. A Christian is a follower of Christ, or a "little Christ". A follower of Christ is one who believes what Jesus said, about himself, about the world, and about humanity, and who - like Thomas or any of the New Testament Christians - acknowledge him as "my lord and my god".
Discussion around whether or not that is actually true is another topic.
13 Jul 07
Originally posted by t0lkienAnd I've argued that for that to be the case, there are no Christians. No-one who is alive today ever heard a single word Jebus said. All you have is what *someone*, and we cannot be sure who, says that he said.
It's not the dictionary definition of Christian, or even the cultural definition, but the Biblical one that matters. Redefining the term does nothing but play semantics, and make the term useless. And to be fair, the term has become so loaded with misconception, reinvention, and negative association that I spend a good deal of time explaining what it does an ...[text shortened]... rd and my god".
Discussion around whether or not that is actually true is another topic.
You are all a bunch of Paulists, since you believe in the biblical portrayal of Jesus, rather than actually knowing what he was actually like.
13 Jul 07
Originally posted by whodeyYou forgot to use the word "allegedly" in your post quite a lot.
Tell that to Jesus.
John 5:46 "For had you believed Moses, you would have believed me; for he wrote of me."
No wonder it is a conversation killer. What Christ is saying is that the rejection of Moses and the rest of the prophets was really a rejection of God himself. Therefore, it matters little as to the evidences God has placed in front of you just ...[text shortened]... h has less to do with the facts, rather, it has more to do with the condition of ones heart.
13 Jul 07
4 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzWe have the Biblical text. That's *all* we have (speaking academically - we also have the modern experience of believers, but that I understand is a massive can of worms academically - however you cannot simply dismiss it altogether). Others have already done enormous work establishing argument for the accuracy and veracity of the extant manuscripts and our current translations. There are arguments on both sides, and there always will be.
And I've argued that for that to be the case, there are no Christians. No-one who is alive today ever heard a single word Jebus said. All you have is what *someone*, and we cannot be sure who, says that he said.
You are all a bunch of Paulists, since you believe in the biblical portrayal of Jesus, rather than actually knowing what he was actually like.
We also have the history of believers over the past 2000 years, but that is very difficult to nail down at times and is so open to subjectivity and historical revisionism that discussion around it can quickly become an argument about arguing.
If you say I'm a Paulist because I believe in the veracity of the Biblical text, then I guess that's what I am (though the term is meaningless to me). However the words of Jesus alone are quite enough to form the same theological conclusions Paul did. I know what you think about that, I've had this discussion before many times on the internet, and we're just going to have to disagree amicably.
But honestly, the point of all this for me is what is actually true. Eventually you have to make a transition from intellectualism and academia, to personal conviction (whichever way that conviction goes). Either way that conviction can in no way change what is actually true, any more than the academia can. What is true, is true. What happened, happened (or didn't, as the case may be). The only power we have is to look into it as honestly as we can, and either appropriate it personally, or not.
By the way, saying "Jebus" doesn't lend any strength to your argument. I *think* I understand the point you are trying to make by using the term, but it just comes off as snide.