Rescuing Jesus from the Christians
Andrew
The Jesus of history is indeed not the Jesus of Christianity. However the
Original Mission of Jesus has (as far as we know) never had it's own
scriptures unless the formative part of the gospel of 'Q' functioned as
such.
In order to reconstruct the original intentions of Jesus you will have to
seperate the older material from the religious myths, dogmas and
phantasies. This will not be an easy task with the enormous corruption of
the original texts by the hands of ignorant religious authors.
Religion is already on the decline in parts of the world where people have
access to proper education. It won't be very long before Jesus will be
liberated from religious myth and dogma. That day all true spiritualists in
the world will be able to say: "Yes, Jesus was stolen from us but has now
been given back to us".
Andrew B.
----------
In article <92833285...@news.mns.net.au>, "Kim Redman"
<k...@mns.net.au> wrote:
>Rescuing Jesus from the Christians
>
>Jesus belongs to his disciples not to the followers of this fictitious
>"christ" character invented by the self appointed apostle Saul of Tarsus.
>Paul, and later others including the gospel writers, meshed this "christ"
>theory into the biography of Jesus in the form of written documents which
>future christians then had the incredible arrogance to declare to be the
>words of God and His divine message.
>The true followers of people like Jesus are now aware that the works of many
>great people have been systematically sabotaged by religious fanatics who
>have intellectually highjacked them and then zealously refused to let anyone
>else get near. That time has ended and we are now reclaiming our teachers.
>Most christians are of course unaware of what their religious ancestors have
>done, but ignorance will not hold as an acceptable excuse if people favour
>church tradition above truth. You will seldom learn much about church
>history from the pulpit because so much church history is shameful to say
>the least. If anyone does a little research in this regard, they will
>understand why it is so important not to blindly put your faith in religious
>leaders.
>
>Kim
>http://www.mns.net.au/~kim
Alice
kyle
> Finally a posting to my heart.
> The Jesus of history is indeed not the Jesus of Christianity. [snip for
> brevity].
> In order to reconstruct the original intentions of Jesus you will have to
> seperate the older material from the religious myths, dogmas and
> phantasies.
I wholeheartedly agree that many who talk liberally of Jesus seem not to have
carefully studied the life, times, teaching and mission of Jesus. Like useless
barnacles attached to a ship, many naive people have attached strange myths to
the narrative of the real Jesus. I spend most of my time in the Gospel records
... no time in the Old Testament ... and some time in the Epistles. Why?
Because the first 3,000 Christians from Pentecost A.D. 30 had no New Testament
but spent the time in their assemblies telling what they had seen and heard Jesus
do and say. I consider this the best model for modern Christians to emulate.
Talk2u7406
Original Mission of Jesus has (as far as we know) never had it's own
scriptures unless the formative part of the gospel of 'Q' functioned as
such.
seperate the older material from the religious myths, dogmas and
the original texts by the hands of ignorant religious authors.
Religion is already on the decline in parts of the world where people have
access to proper education. It won't be very long before Jesus will be
liberated from religious myth and dogma. That day all true spiritualists in
the world will be able to say: "Yes, Jesus was stolen from us but has now
been given back to us". >>
uh oh, you're gonna tick off some fundie's here. i can just here certain people
starting to call you an atheist, or satanist. (i wonder who would say such a
thing?)
:)
Kim Redman
John Leister
Do you mean that Christianity is nothing more then a man made relgion?
Oh?
28SW2
Kim Redman wrote:
> I find by removing the "christ" bits, removing the miracles, the inclusion
> of Jewish prophecies and the magic (ie: virgin birth, physical resurrection)
> a clear picture begins to emerge of a Jesus who was consistent, wise and
> very much human. It becomes obvious that Jesus main obstacle was the
> inflexible, inerrant view of scripture that Jewish tradition held to. This
> tradition was binding people with intolerable rules and regulations cleverly
> used by religious leads to their own advantage.
This was merely the EXTERNAL aspect of the error.
There was a serious DOCTRINAL disagreement between Jesus and the Sadducees
and Pharisees concerning the "resurrection of the dead", as explained in more
detail at:
http://www.geocities.com:80/Athens/Rhodes/7031/deadsea.html
Just a thought.
Michael Cecil (
> Jesus tried to reform this
> situation and paid a high price only to have the christians turn it all
> around and create another version of the same thing.
>
> >Religion is already on the decline in parts of the world where people have
> >access to proper education. It won't be very long before Jesus will be
> >liberated from religious myth and dogma. That day all true spiritualists in
> >the world will be able to say: "Yes, Jesus was stolen from us but has now
> >been given back to us".
> >Andrew B.
>
> Well spoken.
>
> Kim
> http://www.mns.net.au/~kim
28SW2
Kim Redman wrote:
> John Leister wrote in message <37554D69...@senet.com.au>...
> >Dear Kim,
> >
> >Do you mean that Christianity is nothing more then a man made relgion?
> >
> >Oh?
>
> That's right. When Jesus was alive his followers tried to make him king,
> but he wasn't interested. Once he was dead they got their way.
Hey. This is GREAT.
At last a 'lighter' perspective on Truth.
Michael Cecil (
>
>
> Kim
Alan Sindler
>
> Kim Redman wrote:
> >
> > John Leister wrote in message <37554D69...@senet.com.au>...
> > >Dear Kim,
> > >
> > >Do you mean that Christianity is nothing more then a man made relgion?
> > >
> > >Oh?
> >
> > That's right. When Jesus was alive his followers tried to make him king,
> > but he wasn't interested. Once he was dead they got their way.
> >
>
> And what of your religion? Didn't you yourself say, in a previous post,
> that you "invented" it (i.e.. Godism)?
At least Kim admitted it is *his* interpretation, rather than claiming it's
infallible, and was obtained by divine revelation.
Alan S.
--
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."
-Trip Uhalt
Kim Redman
Kim Redman
Alice wrote in message <37556463...@spartanburg.net>...
>If you don't like this site stay off than.
If you don't like this thread, stay off then.
>Why punish yourself?
Stupid comment. I'm not punishing myself, I'm debating a topic about
christianity which, although you obviously aren't aware of it, is what this
NG is for. If you don't like discussing christianity, go elsewhere.
Kim
Kim Redman
Andrew wrote in message <928338845.9329....@news.demon.nl>...
>Finally a posting to my heart.
>The Jesus of history is indeed not the Jesus of Christianity. However the
>Original Mission of Jesus has (as far as we know) never had it's own
>scriptures unless the formative part of the gospel of 'Q' functioned as
>such.
>In order to reconstruct the original intentions of Jesus you will have to
>seperate the older material from the religious myths, dogmas and
>phantasies. This will not be an easy task with the enormous corruption of
>the original texts by the hands of ignorant religious authors.
I find by removing the "christ" bits, removing the miracles, the inclusion
of Jewish prophecies and the magic (ie: virgin birth, physical resurrection)
a clear picture begins to emerge of a Jesus who was consistent, wise and
very much human. It becomes obvious that Jesus main obstacle was the
inflexible, inerrant view of scripture that Jewish tradition held to. This
tradition was binding people with intolerable rules and regulations cleverly
used by religious leads to their own advantage. Jesus tried to reform this
Ross Walker
And what of your religion? Didn't you yourself say, in a previous post,
that you "invented" it (i.e.. Godism)?
Regards,
Ross
PS: my apologies if I got it wrong.
AlanR
{John 14:6-13}
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man
cometh unto the Father, but by me.
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from
henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast
thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;
and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the
words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that
dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else
believe me for the very works' sake.
12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works
that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do;
because I go unto my Father.
13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the
Father may be glorified in the Son.
Perhaps, our belief in Christ is not all made up afterall. Jesus said
this himself. If his love didn't exist to this day but was buried with
his body, perhaps we all would think differently but Jesus' love does
exist and when he rose from the dead and was the finished work he saved
me and loves me... The Living God... The Lord never changes nor
does/did he die.
{Revelation 1:8}
8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord,
which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
AMEN!
--
AlanR
God Is Good...All The Time!
Visit: The Word (www.empire.net/~theword)
jeff_...@my-deja.com
Even as a more evangelically oriented Christian, I appreciate your
comments and understand your hesitations. My biggest complaint about
people in my own "camp" is that many are unwilling to deal with issues
of higher Scriptural criticism or of higher philosophical questions.
When they come into contact with an honest questioner like yourself many
either retreat or they become dogmatic and reactionary. I think
patience and dialogue is Jesus' way to dealing with things.
I think the issue is a little bit deeper than "Rescuing Jesus from the
Christians." I think the real issue is rescuing Christianity from
philosophy. The theologian Karl Barth noted this problem, and noted
that every time secular philosophy has intruded into Christian theology,
Jesus has become a tool for intolerance, hatred, and persecution (for
example, the Medieval synthesis resulting in the Inquisition, or more
recently, the 19th Century liberal German theologians who were
symphathetic to German nationalism and paved the way for Hitler). If
people just allow the Gospels to speak for themselves (whatever your
view of their inspiration), I think the real Jesus will shine through.
I always recommend the works of C. S. Lewis, Josh MacDowell, or R. C.
Sproul for people who want a more lucid, intellectual presentation of
evangelical Christianity.
I hope to continue our discussion.
Jeff
In article <92850338...@news.mns.net.au>,
"Kim Redman" <k...@mns.net.au> wrote:
>
> AlanR wrote in message <37571D64...@empire.net>...
> Problem is; you are assuming that all the words you quoted are from
God.
> If you can effectively convince me that they are from God then I will
almost
> certainly accept your argument, but so far, I have see no reason to
believe
> same.
>
> Kim
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Kim Redman
>> And what of your religion? Didn't you yourself say, in a previous post,
>> that you "invented" it (i.e.. Godism)?
>
>infallible, and was obtained by divine revelation.
>
>Alan S.
Thanks Alan, that's exactly right. I make no claim that my "religion" (for
want of a better word) is the Word of God. It is the truth as I see it and
I welcome any debate about it.
Kim
Kim Redman
AlanR
You and I have written to each other before and you know I value your
side of the debate as much as my own. Believing in Jesus as the son of
God is 100% your job. Look here at some well known verses:
{John 3:16-18}
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but
that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not
is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the
only begotten Son of God.
You see, Kim. You have a choice. You can believe or not. If you do
not believe after having known Jesus you call God (the Father) a liar (I
know you believe in God...):
{1 John 5:8-12}
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the
water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for
this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he
that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not
the record that God gave of his Son.
11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and
this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God
hath not life.
If the Gospel had never been known to you, I believe God, being the ONLY
true and fair judge will be able to search your heart and see your
standing. The trouble is, Kim, you knew Jesus once and now you deny
him... You are a smart person, and I like you... Why do you no longer
accept Jesus?
Did Jesus wrong you or did another person (perhaps a particular
religion) turn you away?
28SW2
jeff_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Kim,
>
> I think the issue is a little bit deeper than "Rescuing Jesus from the
> Christians." I think the real issue is rescuing Christianity from
> philosophy.
Christianity CAN'T be rescued from philosophy.
It consists of the assumption of the metaphysical duality--which is pagan
philosophy--
without which there would be no heaven or hell, no vicarious atonement for
sin...NOTHING that makes Christianity what it IS: a contradiction of the
Revelations
received and taught by Jesus.
> The theologian Karl Barth noted this problem, and noted
> that every time secular philosophy has intruded into Christian theology,
How can pagan metaphysics INTRUDE into pagan metaphysics?
This is my question.
> Jesus has become a tool for
the Christian ministers and theologians to make MONEY.
> I always recommend the works of C. S. Lewis, Josh MacDowell, or R. C.
> Sproul for people who want a more lucid, intellectual presentation of
> evangelical Christianity.
Try Kierkegaard.
Michael Cecil (
jeff_...@my-deja.com
a guy who believed that Christianity has nothing to do with philosophy!
Wasn't that the whole basis of his "leap of faith"? He was reacting
against the very tendencies that I talked about...The Kantian and
Hegelian tendencies to synthesize Christianity into their particular
philosophical systems rather than letting Christianity speak for itself.
From what I understand of Kierkegaard, he calls for us to trustingly
surrender to God rather than trying to rationalize faith. To me, it's
easy to sit back and try to poke holes in Christianity. It's not so
easy to actually take up our Crosses and follow Jesus as Lord and
Savior...and that, after all, is what He calls us to do.
Thanks for your comments...
Jeff
kyle
... and because they can't corral or control us. "Christ set us free ... stand
fast in that freedom."
Kim Redman wrote:
> AlanR wrote in message <37587736...@empire.net>...
> >Kim,
> > You and I have written to each other before and you know I value your
> >side of the debate as much as my own. Believing in Jesus as the son of
> >God is 100% your job. Look here at some well known verses:
> >
> >{John 3:16-18}
> >16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
> >whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
> >17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but
> >that the world through him might be saved.
> >18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not
> >is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the
> >only begotten Son of God.
> >
> >You see, Kim. You have a choice. You can believe or not. If you do
> >not believe after having known Jesus you call God (the Father) a liar (I
> >know you believe in God...):
>
> No you don't understand Alan, I do believe in God, but I refuse to worship a
> book called the bible and I see absolutely no reason why I should. There is
> much in the bible that I do believe, but there are also many things that I
> believe in other books as well. I have great faith in Jesus as a great
> religious reformer, but no faith in Paul's "christ" theory. Simply, I do
> not trust the authors of the bible, but this has nothing to do with calling
> God a liar as God did not write the bible. If you believe in truth then you
> must acknowledge that this "bible = the Word of God" theory is 100% a
> religious invention designed by early christian leaders to give them greater
> power.
>
> >If the Gospel had never been known to you, I believe God, being the ONLY
> >true and fair judge will be able to search your heart and see your
> >standing. The trouble is, Kim, you knew Jesus once and now you deny
> >him... You are a smart person, and I like you... Why do you no longer
> >accept Jesus?
>
> I do accept Jesus. What I don't accept is the "christ" theory. I believe
> the theory was conceived by religious radicals well after Jesus death and
> then merged into the original teachings of Jesus. True to form, these
> fanatics then declared that anyone who doubted the theory was an antichrist
> and of the devil. By using this common fear tactic they have held many good
> people in the bondage of false teaching for nearly 2000 years. It is my
> belief that it was this very bondage that Jesus was trying to save his
> people from.
>
> >Did Jesus wrong you or did another person (perhaps a particular
> >religion) turn you away?
>
> Neither. It was by obeying Jesus command to "seek the truth" that I have
> been set free.
>
> Kim
AlanR
I'm starting to understand more and more about your beliefs and I read
you feelings quite clearly.
Kim Redman wrote:
If you believe in truth then you
> must acknowledge that this "bible = the Word of God" theory is 100% a
> religious invention designed by early christian leaders to give them greater
> power.
>
But Kim, the Bible was the word of God in the Old testament too... The
Jews had no Christianity until Jesus' ministry. In essence once the
Jewish messiah arrived they would have to become Christians wouldn't
they? Christ means messiah.
>
> I do accept Jesus. What I don't accept is the "christ" theory. I believe
> the theory was conceived by religious radicals well after Jesus death and
> then merged into the original teachings of Jesus.
The "theory" was prophesied in the Old Testament. The fact that people
would reject it was also prophesied. What proof is needed if prediction
is worthless. Of course you could try something...like... FAITH.
Kim Redman
jeff_...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7j95f3$k1r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Kim,
>
>Even as a more evangelically oriented Christian, I appreciate your
>comments and understand your hesitations. My biggest complaint about
>people in my own "camp" is that many are unwilling to deal with issues
>of higher Scriptural criticism or of higher philosophical questions.
>When they come into contact with an honest questioner like yourself many
>either retreat or they become dogmatic and reactionary. I think
>patience and dialogue is Jesus' way to dealing with things.
You're right about people not being willing to deal with the difficult
questions, but I do understand why. Religion (and I don't just mean
christian) is notorious for using fear to stop people asking questions or
doubting the leaders. In my journey I have often reached a point where
truth reveals a different answer to the common teaching and I have felt this
fear that tells me to ignore the truth. It is common on these NGs to be
told that you are of the devil and that you will go to eternal hell if you
don't conform to the conservative, traditional school of thought, but for
those who have confidence that God expects us to follow truth, we have no
choice but to persevere.
>I think the issue is a little bit deeper than "Rescuing Jesus from the
>Christians." I think the real issue is rescuing Christianity from
>philosophy.
Yes and no. I feel it is of the highest importance that all people be
rescued from false teachings perpetuated by religious fear. This common
belief in an inerrant bible (the Word of God) is one that was invented by
religious leaders and preached to the people. Christians are so convinced
that to doubt the theory is to doubt God, that they refuse to face the
reality of the situation. Once people realise that the bible was written by
ordinary people with no more inspiration than anyone else gets, then the
whole situation changes and a very different Jesus starts to emerge.
The theologian Karl Barth noted this problem, and noted
>that every time secular philosophy has intruded into Christian theology,
>Jesus has become a tool for intolerance, hatred, and persecution (for
>example, the Medieval synthesis resulting in the Inquisition, or more
>recently, the 19th Century liberal German theologians who were
>symphathetic to German nationalism and paved the way for Hitler). If
>people just allow the Gospels to speak for themselves (whatever your
>view of their inspiration), I think the real Jesus will shine through.
Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. We need to understand a lot about
who wrote each gospel, to whom, and under what circumstances. This SHOULD
be the reason we have religious teacher, but instead our "teachers" are
trained to tow the conservative line and teach others to do the same. Keep
the peasants ignorant and they won't ask any difficult questions.
Kim
Kim Redman
AlanR wrote in message <37587736...@empire.net>...
>Kim,
> You and I have written to each other before and you know I value your
>side of the debate as much as my own. Believing in Jesus as the son of
>God is 100% your job. Look here at some well known verses:
>
>{John 3:16-18}
>16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
>whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
>17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but
>that the world through him might be saved.
>18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not
>is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the
>only begotten Son of God.
>
>You see, Kim. You have a choice. You can believe or not. If you do
>not believe after having known Jesus you call God (the Father) a liar (I
>know you believe in God...):
No you don't understand Alan, I do believe in God, but I refuse to worship a
book called the bible and I see absolutely no reason why I should. There is
much in the bible that I do believe, but there are also many things that I
believe in other books as well. I have great faith in Jesus as a great
religious reformer, but no faith in Paul's "christ" theory. Simply, I do
not trust the authors of the bible, but this has nothing to do with calling
God a liar as God did not write the bible. If you believe in truth then you
must acknowledge that this "bible = the Word of God" theory is 100% a
religious invention designed by early christian leaders to give them greater
power.
>If the Gospel had never been known to you, I believe God, being the ONLY
>true and fair judge will be able to search your heart and see your
>standing. The trouble is, Kim, you knew Jesus once and now you deny
>him... You are a smart person, and I like you... Why do you no longer
>accept Jesus?
I do accept Jesus. What I don't accept is the "christ" theory. I believe
the theory was conceived by religious radicals well after Jesus death and
AlanR
It has been said by many Jewish people to me, "I'm Jewish and I'm angry
with the whole Jewish attitude," I replied, "Why?" They continued,
"Because the Jews wanted their messiah and they waitied and waited and
when they got him they doubted him and had him killed." I replied,
"Interesting thought."
You see, mankind is arrogant and yes.. sinful. We expect God to live
up to our own dreampt up expectations not realizing that he meets them
and surpasses them. We as a people tend to doubt anything and
everything God does for us and so we have no faith in God and have once
again called God a liar. And so when God sent Jesus, the Messiah, we
compared a loving, humbled, plain looking man (who still performed
miracles.. and lets not forget the transfiguration) with a gold laiden,
mighty goliath-like and almost ferocious leader of the military. God's
character was perfectly imitated in Jesus.. and when Jesus returns Gods
judgement will be perfectly carried out.
Jesus will not come to save, or to bring the peace he brought the first
time, he will come to bring justice... Then will the Jews and yourself believe?
{Revelation 1:13-18}
13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of
man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps
with a golden girdle.
14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and
his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace;
and his voice as the sound of many waters.
16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a
sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right
hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for
evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
Ace Ventura
<snipped>
> I wholeheartedly agree that many who talk liberally of Jesus seem not to have
> carefully studied the life, times, teaching and mission of Jesus. Like useless
> barnacles attached to a ship, many naive people have attached strange myths to
> the narrative of the real Jesus. I spend most of my time in the Gospel records
> ... no time in the Old Testament ... and some time in the Epistles. Why?
> Because the first 3,000 Christians from Pentecost A.D. 30 had no New Testament
> but spent the time in their assemblies telling what they had seen and heard Jesus
> do and say. I consider this the best model for modern Christians to emulate.
You're right. If someone were to ask most Christians today the most important
teaching of Jesus (as I have), they would be told it is to believe in him, so
you will go to heaven instead of hell. Most notably absent will be the importance
of living a life as he demonstrated, which was, after all, the essence of his
teachings. Christianity has mysteriously lost sight of that aspect, other than
giving it occasional lip service.
Kim Redman
>From what I understand of Kierkegaard, he calls for us to trustingly
>surrender to God rather than trying to rationalize faith. To me, it's
>easy to sit back and try to poke holes in Christianity. It's not so
>easy to actually take up our Crosses and follow Jesus as Lord and
>Savior...and that, after all, is what He calls us to do.
But Jesus also taught that we should seek the truth if we wished to find
freedom and really I think blind faith was exactly what Jesus was telling
people not to rely on. I don't regard rational questioning of conservative
theology as poking holes in christianity.
Kim Redman
AlanR wrote in message <3759A7D8...@empire.net>...
>Kim,
> I'm starting to understand more and more about your beliefs and I read
>you feelings quite clearly.
>
>Kim Redman wrote:
>> must acknowledge that this "bible = the Word of God" theory is 100% a
>> religious invention designed by early christian leaders to give them
greater
>> power.
>>
>Jews had no Christianity until Jesus' ministry. In essence once the
>Jewish messiah arrived they would have to become Christians wouldn't
>they? Christ means messiah.
Christ comes from the Greek word Christos which in turn comes from the
Hebrew word Messiah which mean "anointed one". It does not mean "THE
anointed one" and, from what the Holman bible dict tells me, was a term for
various people regarded as God's anointed. Apparently this even included a
pagan King by the name of Cyrus. The Messiah the Jews were hoping for was a
military leader like King David. This person would be anointed by God but
otherwise a perfectly normal human being. The christian version of the
messiah was, in my opinion, a desperate attempt to explain the untimely
death of Jesus.
>> I do accept Jesus. What I don't accept is the "christ" theory. I
believe
>> the theory was conceived by religious radicals well after Jesus death and
>> then merged into the original teachings of Jesus.
>
>The "theory" was prophesied in the Old Testament. The fact that people
>would reject it was also prophesied. What proof is needed if prediction
>is worthless. Of course you could try something...like... FAITH.
The Jews would agree with me that the so called prophesies in their
scriptures are nothing to do with Jesus. Regarding trying faith, one has to
ask, "faith in what?". The teachings of religious leaders? Ok, which ones?
My faith is in a God of love and truth and I willingly accept any teachings
that fall into that category.
John Leister
Kim Redman wrote:
> John Leister wrote in message <37554D69...@senet.com.au>...
> >Dear Kim,
> >
> >Do you mean that Christianity is nothing more then a man made relgion?
> >
> >Oh?
>
> That's right. When Jesus was alive his followers tried to make him king,
> but he wasn't interested. Once he was dead they got their way.
>
> Kim
Thankyou Kim....
And as for one Christian person who wrote to me after my reply your
attitude sure does say a lot about your faith and how one should be
forgiving and loving of all those around you, including those that
criticise you.
Read your flipping Bible you moron.
It says all these things in there.
Folks some Christians do not take well to crticism and are not
very forgiving....
Gary
allegations that you have brought forth. Indicting 2000 years of
Christianity and it's leaders is not a charge taken lightly. Do you offer
the group any proof of your claims, or are we to just go on your word alone,
rather on the scriptures? Have you now pitted your brain against all of
Christianity?
Kim Redman wrote in message <92833285...@news.mns.net.au>...
jeff_...@my-deja.com
the truth...He wants us to live it. Jesus was a "doer." Remember the
gospel episode (Luke 10:25-37) when Jesus is talking about loving your
neighbor as yourself. An observer tried to intellectualize the
discussion by asking "And who is my neighbor?" And Jesus told him of
the Good Samaritan who did not stop to question who his neighbor was
but simply loved a person in need.
I agree with you on your comment about "blind faith" -- Jesus does not
call us to blind faith, but He does call us to faith in the Living God
who has proved that He keeps His Word and does what He says He will do.
Questioning conservative theology may be a legitimate (and at times
necessary) endeavor, but questioning Biblical theology is dangerous. I
recall one of your earlier messages in which you critiqued Paul for
making something out of Jesus that Jesus did not wish. Paul was
definitely presenting Jesus to a larger audience--the Greco-Roman
world. But in his essential presentation, Paul was faithful to Jesus'
teachings. Remember that the Pauline letters were written BEFORE the
Gospels, and therefore from a purely historical perspective, they must
be given some degree of authority. For a better presentation of this
perspective than I can give, I refer you to N. T. Wright's, "What Saint
Paul Really Said." Another short but lucid presentation is Hans Kung's
chapter on Paul in his book "Great Christian Thinkers."
God bless,
Jeff.
kyle
> Religion is not a science, it is a faith.
>
> Kim
> http://www.mns.net.au/~kim
Well said! And religion is largely subjectively apprehended and promoted.
kyle
> Questioning conservative theology may be a legitimate (and at times
> necessary) endeavor, but questioning Biblical theology is dangerous.
"Dangerous!" ... in what way? Maybe such unquestioning faith is why we are
referred to as "Sheep" ... and our overlords called "Pastors!"
Pastor Frank
adherents share a common theology originated by their favourite theologian.
You either believe Luther's, Calvin's, St. Thomas Aquinas's etc. Biblical
interpretation, or be rejected and ostracized by the church. Hence it's
"dangerous" to question too closely.
That is why I am a fundamentalist. My interpretation in the Spirit is
regarded as valid as anyone else's Biblical interpretation in the Spirit,
for each of us are taught by the Holy Spirit as and when we are ready to
receive, and no one is exactly at the same maturity and understanding in the
Spirit at any one time. We all grow spiritually and our Biblical
interpretations change with growing maturity to the glory of our Lord and
Saviour.
Pastor Frank
"Greater love hath no man than this,
that a man lay down his life for his friends."
-- Jesus in John 15:13
Ace Ventura
<snipped>
> Jeff has a point. It's the main line churches which demand, that their
> adherents share a common theology originated by their favourite theologian.
> You either believe Luther's, Calvin's, St. Thomas Aquinas's etc. Biblical
> interpretation, or be rejected and ostracized by the church. Hence it's
> "dangerous" to question too closely.
> That is why I am a fundamentalist. My interpretation in the Spirit is
> regarded as valid as anyone else's Biblical interpretation in the Spirit,
> for each of us are taught by the Holy Spirit as and when we are ready to
> receive, and no one is exactly at the same maturity and understanding in the
> Spirit at any one time. We all grow spiritually and our Biblical
> interpretations change with growing maturity to the glory of our Lord and
> Saviour.
Those who follow the teachings of Luther, or Calvin, think of themselves as
fundamentalists. They believe that the above mentioned theologians knew
what the bible was trying to say, and were helping them in interpreting it.
What _you_ call the fundamentals of the faith may vary greatly from what
someone else would. How can you be so sure that your definition of the
fundamentals are more correct than another's? That's why there's so many
sects and churches, you people can't agree among yourselves what the "true"
fundamentals are.
Kim Redman
Gary wrote in message ...
>I would be most interested to hear your reasons for believing these
>allegations that you have brought forth. Indicting 2000 years of
>Christianity and it's leaders is not a charge taken lightly. Do you offer
>the group any proof of your claims, or are we to just go on your word
alone,
>rather on the scriptures? Have you now pitted your brain against all of
Christianity?
Religion isn't about proof. Can you prove God exists? Can you prove Jesus
was the Christ? Can you prove the bible is the Word of God?
Religion is not a science, it is a faith. All aspects of religion are a
matter of personal opinion.
jeff_...@my-deja.com
kyle <dra...@fflax.net> wrote:
> jeff_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Questioning conservative theology may be a legitimate (and at times
> > necessary) endeavor, but questioning Biblical theology is dangerous.
>
> "Dangerous!" ... in what way? Maybe such unquestioning faith is why
we are
> referred to as "Sheep" ... and our overlords called "Pastors!"
>
patient is the "patient." The patient willingly submits to the
authority of the Doctor because the Doctor is a trained professional and
knows more about the subject than the patient. In the same way, the
Pastor/Rabbi/Priest/etc... is trained in theology, in the sacred
writings of his/her tradition, and in practical techniques of ministry.
Think about it...Law, Medicine, Engineering, Business, Teaching, or
even Plumbing...we all grant a certain amount of authority to people who
have been trained in these fields. But when it comes to
theology/religion...each person wants to be his/her own authority.
Strange, huh?
I submit to the teaching of my pastor because he knows a heck of a lot
more about Scripture than I do...he's been trained in Greek and Hebrew,
he's been trained under some of the best theologians of this century.
This doesn't mean that I don't raise questions and challenge his
views...it just means that I give him the benefit of the doubt.
Les Brown
>I find by removing the "christ" bits, removing the miracles, the inclusion
>of Jewish prophecies and the magic (ie: virgin birth, physical resurrection)
>a clear picture begins to emerge of a Jesus who was consistent, wise and
>very much human. It becomes obvious that Jesus main obstacle was the
>inflexible, inerrant view of scripture that Jewish tradition held to. This
>tradition was binding people with intolerable rules and regulations cleverly
>used by religious leads to their own advantage. Jesus tried to reform this
>situation and paid a high price only to have the christians turn it all
>around and create another version of the same thing.
>
Interesting.
It seems to me by my reading of the New Testament that Jesus himself
did not try to abolish the observance of Jewish rules and regulations
That was Paul's job - and then for the gentiles only.
I think that a difference must be made between Christianity as a
Jewish sect up until the destruction of the Temple in 70CE when it was
run and organised mainly by Jews, when concepts such the trinity,
virgin birth, salvation through belief, the Jews being the killers of
Jesus were unknown. Such concepts came about slowly and ad-hoc until
the first Nicean Council which decided upon them by people more
familiar with pagan ritual and ideas than Jewish laws and practices.
Jesus according to the N.T. maintained observance of Jewish Law.
>>Religion is already on the decline in parts of the world where people have
>>access to proper education. It won't be very long before Jesus will be
>>liberated from religious myth and dogma. That day all true spiritualists in
>>the world will be able to say: "Yes, Jesus was stolen from us but has now
>>been given back to us".
>>Andrew B.
>
>Well spoken.
>
I'm looking forward to the day when people will realise that belief in
Jesus is not required for salvation but that all that is required is
good deeds, repentance and prayer. It's worked for us and the world is
only improved by people with these practices - Jew or gentile.
Les Brown
natha...@my-deja.com
Jesus died for everyone. His life and death even for a sinner like ME.
May you get to know Jesus as your savior as I have done.
God LOVES YOU,
Nathan-todd
In article <7j95f3$k1r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
jeff_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Kim,
>
> Even as a more evangelically oriented Christian, I appreciate your
> comments and understand your hesitations. My biggest complaint about
> people in my own "camp" is that many are unwilling to deal with issues
> of higher Scriptural criticism or of higher philosophical questions.
> When they come into contact with an honest questioner like yourself
many
> either retreat or they become dogmatic and reactionary. I think
> patience and dialogue is Jesus' way to dealing with things.
>
> Christians." I think the real issue is rescuing Christianity from
> that every time secular philosophy has intruded into Christian
theology,
> Jesus has become a tool for intolerance, hatred, and persecution (for
> example, the Medieval synthesis resulting in the Inquisition, or more
> recently, the 19th Century liberal German theologians who were
> symphathetic to German nationalism and paved the way for Hitler). If
> people just allow the Gospels to speak for themselves (whatever your
> view of their inspiration), I think the real Jesus will shine through.
>
> Sproul for people who want a more lucid, intellectual presentation of
> evangelical Christianity.
>
>
> Jeff
>
Pastor Frank
Christian denomination call themselves "Fundamentalists". Fundamentalists
also regard the Bible the only, and infallible Word of God. Main-line
churches are mostly liberal and don't.
Pastor Frank
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,
and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind. This is the first and
great commandment. And the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself. On these two laws hang all the law and the prophets."
-- Jesus in Matt. 22:37-40
kyle
> For the same reason that the physician is called a "Doctor" and the
> patient is the "patient." The patient willingly submits to the
> authority of the Doctor because the Doctor is a trained professional and
> knows more about the subject than the patient. In the same way, the
> Pastor/Rabbi/Priest/etc... is trained in theology, in the sacred
> writings of his/her tradition,
Sorry, Jeff, but when I select a physician, I do an interview to determine
their competence and professional qualities first. You evidentally do not
read the lists of physicians who are losing their licenses to practice due
to non-professional conduct with patients. I do not "grant" trust to any
person who invades either my body or my soul ... they do it "the old
fashioned way ... they earn it."
kyle
> It seems to me by my reading of the New Testament that Jesus himself
> did not try to abolish the observance of Jewish rules and regulations
Jesus was a Jew living under the Old Covenant and observed its regulations as
such. However, upon his death, that covenant was "fulfilled" (or filled-up) and
a New Covenant begun.
jeff_...@my-deja.com
was not accused of malpractice or any other devious activities, perhaps
you even get recommendations...But once you find the doctor who meets
your qualifications, you don't tell him/her how to perform the surgery,
or what medications to prescribe, because you're not an authority in the
field of medicine.
Unless you believe in faith healing, eventually you've got to TRUST that
the person will do the job they were trained to do. It's the same with
pastors. Certainly you must find the pastor who meets your
qualifications, who can best serve you as a person...but at some point,
you've got to trust his/her authority in the field in which he/she has
been trained.
28SW2
jeff_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Think about it...Law, Medicine, Engineering, Business, Teaching, or
> even Plumbing...we all grant a certain amount of authority to people who
> have been trained in these fields. But when it comes to
> theology/religion...each person wants to be his/her own authority.
> Strange, huh?
You are equating human knowledge with Divine Knowledge.
Human knowledge can be conveyed by hearsay. This is what education and
training are all about.
> I submit to the teaching of my pastor because he knows a heck of a lot
> more about Scripture than I do
Why?
> ...he's been trained in Greek and Hebrew,
So what?
> he's been trained under some of the best theologians of this century.
Who he learned from through hearsay.
> This doesn't mean that I don't raise questions and challenge his
> views...it just means that I give him the benefit of the doubt.
Why?
He gets paid to teach you. Don't you think there is a conflict of interest
there?
If he has not RECEIVED Revelation, there is no more likelihood that YOU
would have a better understanding of the Revelations than he does.
Michael Cecil (
kyle
> Unless you believe in faith healing, eventually you've got to TRUST that
> the person will do the job they were trained to do.
We *train* monkeys, but we *educate* people. A trained person goes thru a
series of memorized actions, seldom knowing why they are doing a certain
thing a certain way. An educated person understands the reasons behind
things and is able to improvise to meet the particular need at the
particular time. I certainly would not trust a *trained* pastor.
> It's the same with
> pastors. Certainly you must find the pastor who meets your
> qualifications, who can best serve you as a person...but at some point,
> you've got to trust his/her authority in the field in which he/she has
> been trained.
Finding a pastor with said qualifications is like looking for a needle in a
haystack. That is not my bone of contention. What bothers me is your basic
approval of a clergy/laity stratification among Christians. My
understanding of the New Testament ministry is that *every* Christian is a
*minister.* By *minister* I do not mean a professional class of persons,
but *minister* in the sense that its original meaning is to *serve* the
needs of others. In that sense, as in the New Testament, all Christians are
ministers ... just as "there is now neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free,
male nor female, but all one in Christ Jesus."
Portal
That is an odd stance theologically since in Matt 23 Y'shu'a commanded His
followers to follow the Mishna, the Oral Torah. If you follow tyhe Bible, you
have to study the Talmud as well. Or you can follow the Catholic tradition
NOT to study Talmud.
Either way, you must obey either the Messiah's instruction to study and obey
something other than the written word, or follow the Catholics traditions that
are other than the Bible.
Ross Walker
Respectfully,
Ross
Kim Redman wrote:
>
> >> And what of your religion? Didn't you yourself say, in a previous post,
> >> that you "invented" it (i.e.. Godism)?
> >
> >At least Kim admitted it is *his* interpretation, rather than claiming it's
> >infallible, and was obtained by divine revelation.
> >
> >Alan S.
>
> Thanks Alan, that's exactly right. I make no claim that my "religion" (for
> want of a better word) is the Word of God. It is the truth as I see it and
> I welcome any debate about it.
>
> Kim
Ace Ventura
Even a particular interpretation of a "religion" is an opinion at best.
Folks that thump bible's don't have any more lock on the *truth* than
those who don't. We're just all guessing here. I haven't seen any
proof to believe this is not the case.
jeff_...@my-deja.com
> >
>I absolutely agree with you here...every Christian is by definition a
"minister." We are all called by God to serve one another in love. But
certain people are called to "educate" others according to the objective
truth which is the essence of Christianity -- Jesus Christ and His
Gospel. And after all, the Christian faith is NOT about human beings
seeking to know God...it is about God REVEALING HIMSELF to human beings
in a unique way. This objective revelation has come to us through the
writings of Scripture, and it is the task of the "educated" pastor to
interpret Scripture for his/her particular congregation.
jeff_...@my-deja.com
28SW2 <mjtc...@MichianaToday.com> wrote:
>
>
> jeff_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Think about it...Law, Medicine, Engineering, Business, Teaching, or
> > even Plumbing...we all grant a certain amount of authority to people
who
> > have been trained in these fields. But when it comes to
> > theology/religion...each person wants to be his/her own authority.
> > Strange, huh?
>
> You are equating human knowledge with Divine Knowledge.
> Human knowledge can be conveyed by hearsay. This is what education and
> training are all about.
Education and training are hearsay? You mean that no OBJECTIVE TRUTH
can be transmitted from one person to another through the process of
education? What about 2 + 2 = 4...is that just hearsay, or is it really
true?
>
> > I submit to the teaching of my pastor because he knows a heck of a
lot
> > more about Scripture than I do
>
> Why?
>
> > ...he's been trained in Greek and Hebrew,
>
> So what?
Greek and Hebrew are the original languages in which Scripture was
written.
>
> > he's been trained under some of the best theologians of this
century.
>
> Who he learned from through hearsay.
Again, I don't equate education with hearsay. Objective truth can be
transmitted from one human being to another.
>
> > This doesn't mean that I don't raise questions and challenge his
> > views...it just means that I give him the benefit of the doubt.
>
> Why?
>
> He gets paid to teach you. Don't you think there is a conflict of
interest
> there?
> If he has not RECEIVED Revelation, there is no more likelihood that
YOU
> would have a better understanding of the Revelations than he does.
>
> Michael Cecil (
>
>
kyle
> [snipped]. This objective revelation has come to us through the
> writings of Scripture, and it is the task of the "educated" pastor to
> interpret Scripture for his/her particular congregation.
So you set up the understanding of a single individual (pastor) as the
bellwether by which we (sheep) can come to understand God's will. Well
then, I guess that makes the Pope the ultimate pastor.
Mathew Upchurch
scripture, except maybe taken way way way out of context. Jesus did not
command believers to follow the Oral Law, in fact Jesus actually put the
written scripture above the Law. I encourage you to read the whole Bible
and see what you come up with. In my study I see the opposite; Jesus upset
at man for creating tradition, and superceding the Word of God.
God bless,
Mathew
Portal <ga...@outpost.net> wrote in message
news:7jlq5d$juv$1...@news.iag.net...
Pastor Frank
Fundamentalists
>>also regard the Bible the only, and infallible Word of God. Main-line
>>churches are mostly liberal and don't.
>
>That is an odd stance theologically since in Matt 23 Y'shu'a commanded His
>followers to follow the Mishna, the Oral Torah.
Please cite chapter AND verse, as well the wording from a respected well
known translation. Presently you are only succeeding in appearing to be
cryptic. I'm sure precious few know what you're on about, including myself.
Pastor Frank
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
--2 Timothy 3:16
Portal
>What verse are you talking about in Matthew 23. I don't see any such
>scripture, except maybe taken way way way out of context. Jesus did not
>command believers to follow the Oral Law, in fact Jesus actually put the
>written scripture above the Law.
Actually He did. In fact He frequently taught the Oral Torah. What
Christians call the "Sermon on the Mount" was all from the Oral Torah, what
you may have heard of as the Talmud.
> I encourage you to read the whole Bible
>and see what you come up with. In my study I see the opposite; Jesus upset
>at man for creating tradition, and superceding the Word of God.
The Oral Torah was given by G-d, however men DID make their own traditions.
The Oral Torah (Talmud) does not contradict the Bible and so Cannot superced
the scriptures.
Rather than type my finger to little nubs, i will take advantage of the "Cut
and Paste" option of my computer to post an explanation. It may be rather
wordy, but here it is:
So what is this Oral Law, and what did Y'shu'a (Jesus) say about it?
Traditionally it was taught to Mosheh (Moses) by HaShem (the Lord) on Mt
Sinai. According to this tradition, HaShem gave Mosheh the Oral Law and the
Oral Commandment to teach it orally only. That it why it was separate from
the Written Law. The Talmud includes the Mishnah (Oral Law) and the Gemmara
(Commentary and Discussion on the Mishnah). By the time of the writing of the
Talmud, there were already differences in opinion about the Mishnah. This
stems from the dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai (Beit Hillel was
the group of P'rushim (Pharesees) that taught the importance of the Spirtit of
the Law, BietShammai was legalistic and inflexable). An example of this is
Tractate Beitza 1a, where two conflicting Mishnah are given, one as the
opinion of Beit Hillel, the other as the opinion of Beit Shammai.
Should a Messianic believer or Christian study it? Only after you study the
scriptures. Since the Gemmara arguments are backed up by the Tanakh, you need
to understand the Tanakh before you can discern between valid and invalid
arguments.
Is the Oral Law binding? We need to check the scriptures for that answer:
Mattityahu 23:1-7
"23 1 Then Y'shu'a addressed the crowds and his talmidim: 2 "The
Torah-teachers and the P'rushim," he said, "sit in the seat of Moshe. 3 So
whatever they tell you, take care to do it. But don't do what they do,
because they talk but don't act! 4 They tie heavy loads onto people's
shoulders but won't lift a finger to help carry them. 5 Everything they do is
done to be seen by others; for they make their t'fillin (small leather boxes
containint scriptures worn as commanded in Deut. 6:8) broad and their
tzitziyot long (fringes worn as commanded in Num. 15:38&39), 6 they love the
place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues, 7 and they
love being greeted deferentially in the marketplaces and being called 'Rebe'."
The reference to the long Tzitziyot refers to their pridefulness. However,
there is another point here:
The Talmud states, in Tractate Menacot 39a, that the "anaf" (loose ends of the
strings of the tzitziyot) be twice the length of the "gedil" (the upper
portion).
So in their prideful exclamation to the world that they obeyed the commandment
better that other people, some of the Pharisees of Beit Shammai violated the
Oral Law, which Y'shu'a endorses here.
Further, in verse 3, Y'shu'a commands that His followers obey the Oral Law.
"Do what they tell you can only mean" the Oral Law, since, while the Torah was
read in the synagogues every Sabbath, it was never refered to as "what they
tell you" or any other phrase indicating oral transmission of knowlege. The
written Torah was refered to by phrases indicating reading writing( Ex: "it is
written").
You will note that I used Y'shu'a's own words here and not those of Rabbi
Sha'ul (Paul). Rabbi Shaul's letters are, by their very nature, Rabbinic
Writings, that does not make them invalid, but it does set a higher importance
upon the words that actually came out of Y'shu'a's mouth!
>
>God bless,
>
>Mathew
>
>
>Portal <ga...@outpost.net> wrote in message
>news:7jlq5d$juv$1...@news.iag.net...
>> In article <7jjcge$hbi$1...@nntp1.uunet.ca>, "Pastor Frank"
><NOSPA...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> >Christian denomination call themselves "Fundamentalists". Fundamentalists
>> >also regard the Bible the only, and infallible Word of God. Main-line
>> >churches are mostly liberal and don't.
>> >
>>
>> That is an odd stance theologically since in Matt 23 Y'shu'a commanded His
Portal
>Portal wrote in message <7jlq5d$juv$1...@news.iag.net>...
><NOSPA...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>
> Fundamentalists
>>>also regard the Bible the only, and infallible Word of God. Main-line
>>>churches are mostly liberal and don't.
>
>>
>>That is an odd stance theologically since in Matt 23 Y'shu'a commanded His
>>followers to follow the Mishna, the Oral Torah.
>
>known translation. Presently you are only succeeding in appearing to be
>cryptic. I'm sure precious few know what you're on about, including myself.
>
>Pastor Frank
I did not mean to be cryptic or to confuse you.
Coming from the same culture as the Messiah, his reference seemed blatanly
obvious to me. I should have been more understanding of those from other
cultures.
Here is a short explanation:
Pastor Frank
>>
>>>That is an odd stance theologically since in Matt 23 Y'shu'a commanded
His
>>>followers to follow the Mishna, the Oral Torah.
>>
>> Please cite chapter AND verse, as well the wording from a respected
well
>>known translation. Presently you are only succeeding in appearing to be
>>cryptic. I'm sure precious few know what you're on about, including
myself.
>>Pastor Frank
>
>I did not mean to be cryptic or to confuse you.
>Coming from the same culture as the Messiah, his reference seemed blatanly
>obvious to me. I should have been more understanding of those from other
>cultures.
>
>Here is a short explanation:
>
Thanks for the explanation. At least I know now there is such a thing as
the "oral law", and your citations did NOT vary in spirit with the Bible.
But since this "oral law" is not part of the Christian canon, I cannot
include it my Biblical interpretation of the NT. Correspondents would have
access to my references to "oral law". Therefore Christians just have to
make do with the standard Bible as is. The "oral law" can certainly be used
however to amplify the Christians canon, never thought to disprove any part
of it.
As Paul's Galatians 3:13 is part of the Christian canon, it MUST
supercede any and all other references, for the philosophical cohesiveness
of NT depends on it.
Pastor Frank
"God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him
must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth."
-- Jesus in John 4:24
Kim Redman
Ross Walker wrote in message <375E6C14...@tac.com.au>...
>Maybe then we should call your "religion" no more than "an opinion".
>
>Respectfully,
>Ross
I agree. Every religion is just peoples opinions. Even if one clams to
have had a spiritual experience, the interpretation of that experience is
still just ones opinion. Of course there are always those who will say "God
told Me....", but that is normally fixed when they go back on their
medication.
Kim
Portal
>Portal wrote in message <7jorj3$ai9$2...@news.iag.net>...
>>>
>>>>That is an odd stance theologically since in Matt 23 Y'shu'a commanded
>His
>>>>followers to follow the Mishna, the Oral Torah.
>>>
>>> Please cite chapter AND verse, as well the wording from a respected
>well
>>>known translation. Presently you are only succeeding in appearing to be
>>>cryptic. I'm sure precious few know what you're on about, including
>myself.
>>>Pastor Frank
>>
>>I did not mean to be cryptic or to confuse you.
>>Coming from the same culture as the Messiah, his reference seemed blatanly
>>obvious to me. I should have been more understanding of those from other
>>cultures.
>>
>>Here is a short explanation:
>>
>
> Thanks for the explanation. At least I know now there is such a thing as
>the "oral law", and your citations did NOT vary in spirit with the Bible.
>But since this "oral law" is not part of the Christian canon, I cannot
>include it my Biblical interpretation of the NT.
Christian Cannon?
You mean "Catholic Cannon"
The Catholic church denounced the Talmud because it was the only non-Catholic
book containing the early history of the Catholic church, and its pagan
origins. Since you are protestant, I assume that you are aware of the
paganism in Catholicism.
> Correspondents would have
>access to my references to "oral law". Therefore Christians just have to
>make do with the standard Bible as is. The "oral law" can certainly be used
>however to amplify the Christians canon, never thought to disprove any part
>of it.
Since the Messiah commamnded the study of it, surely it is "Cannon"?
Or did He not have that authority?
> As Paul's Galatians 3:13 is part of the Christian canon, it MUST
>supercede any and all other references, for the philosophical cohesiveness
>of NT depends on it.
More importantly on the correct understanding of it!
"The Messiah redeemed us from the curse pronounced in the Torah by becoming
cursed on our behalf; for the Tanakh says, “Everyone who hangs from a stake
comes under a curse.” " Gal 3:13
You will note that we are freed from the curses not from the obligation, the
wisdom, the love of G-d that are also part of the Torah.
Laramie
> Christianity CAN'T be rescued from philosophy.
> It consists of the assumption of the metaphysical duality--which is pagan
> philosophy--
> without which there would be no heaven or hell, no vicarious atonement for
> sin...NOTHING that makes Christianity what it IS: a contradiction of the
> Revelations
> received and taught by Jesus.
Much does indeed depend on one's view of 'xtianity' if another is to
accept your argument. What I mean is that while you might personally
attribute duality as 'pagan' in attribute or origin, I view as much as
yet a view on things which already are.
Consider for example the 'golden rule'. Pagans are often cited with it
as much as another xtian might claim the credit. But if we should think
that either 'invented' it...then we should perhaps 'think again'?
And maybe this is the difference between what one might call a
'philosophy' and a 'religion': whatever truth is accepted in a
relative sense being arguable is 'philosophy', and what is accepted
as being absolute is 'religion'?
BTW, I think I see where you're at with heaven/hell as contradictory
if there is no such atonement vis a vis JC's message of the same as
well as in Revelations. Your posting was a bit blurred tho, as JC
and Rev received by John kinda say the same thing about heaven/hell.
Pagan?
> How can pagan metaphysics INTRUDE into pagan metaphysics?
> This is my question.
Perhaps you can answer as much for yourself, as I suspect I'm not quite
understanding you entirely. How can one being human intrude on another
being human?
> Try Kierkegaard.
>
> Michael Cecil (
And I recommend the Inet for such anonymous questions and answers.
Kierkegaard like God, as said, is dead.
Ross Walker
So, essentially, you're saying that we cannot know God? If that's the
case what are we doing bothering with this ng for? Why don't we just
scrap it and get on with our lives? Because you have your "opinion", I
have mine. If that's all it comes down to then nobody is right, nobody
is wrong, it's just about who can come up with the better argument and
Truth is left by the wayside. You're saying truth is what we make it not
what God says it is.
Regards,
Ross
Kim Redman
>> >> Thanks Alan, that's exactly right. I make no claim that my "religion"
>> (for
>> >> want of a better word) is the Word of God. It is the truth as I see
it
>> and
>> >> I welcome any debate about it.
>> >>
>> >> Kim
>Ross wrote:
>So, essentially, you're saying that we cannot know God?
You have a point there. I guess what I mean is that theology is just
opinions but not experiences. However, our interpretation of an experience,
even a spiritual experience, is still just opinion.
> If that's the
>case what are we doing bothering with this ng for? Why don't we just
>scrap it and get on with our lives? Because you have your "opinion", I
>have mine. If that's all it comes down to then nobody is right, nobody
>is wrong, it's just about who can come up with the better argument and
>Truth is left by the wayside.
Not at all. Just because we have opinions doesn't mean they are necessarily
right.
>You're saying truth is what we make it not
>what God says it is.
I think you're putting words into my mouth there. Certainly if God says
something is true then that is the end of the subject. The problem is that
everyone has a different opinion as to when it is God speaking and as to the
interpretation of what He is supposed to have said. For example some people
believe that every word of the bible is from God, which has two problems;
one is, who's interpretation of the bible is correct and secondly, it is
only peoples opinion that the bible is God's Word. Certainly God never said
it was.
So as you can see, it's not quite as simple as just believing "what God
says". I wish it was.
Kim
Alan Sindler
I'd like to know how Ross thinks he's so sure he knows what God says. Isn't
the belief that the bible is the infallible word of God, also just an opinion?
Alan S.
--
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."
-Albert Einstein
AlanR
just how did you come to know or understand God and his character. If
you believed even one part of the Bible you would have to understand and
believe the New Testament and the messages God conveys to us there.
If you had no other knowledge of God before you became a Christian (yes,
before you lost faith in Christ too), just where did you learn about
God.. If what you learned about God from where ever you did, and the
messages were good and pure from God's spirit, you might think
differently today.. Your ideas about God and the Bible are interesting,
but I cannot support them. (not that you asked me to..)
--
AlanR
God Is Good...All The Time!
Visit: The Word (www.empire.net/~theword)
seeker.of.truth
> just how did you come to know or understand God and his character.
<laugh> You presume humorously far too much :)
> If you believed even one part of the Bible you would have to understand
and
> believe the New Testament and the messages God conveys to us there.
<laugh> This is so false it is funny :) :)
Ross Walker
"The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of
God," (Romans 8: 16)
Les Brown
Then why does Jesus need to come a second time if all was "filled up"?
The truth is that after his death nothing was fuliflled. Look up the
messianic prophecies contained in the Jewish Scripture. Nothing
happened.
Les Brown
AlanR
I am going only on what information was given to me by Kim R. Whatever
you think you're replying to is out of context because you obviously
haven't a clue as to what conversations I've had with her in the past.
I dare not laugh at you, after all a prideful and haughty attitude is
not looked upon favorably by God in the NT or OT.
AlanR
I am going only on what information was given to me by Kim R. Whatever
obviously haven't a clue as to what conversations in the past. I dare
not laugh at you, after all a prideful and haughty attitude isnot looked
upon favorably by God in the NT or OT.@&^!! @&^!!
-- @&^!! @&^!!
AlanR
God Is Good...All The Time!
AlanR
I am going only on what information was given to me @&^!!by Kim
R. Whatever
you think your@&^!! replying to is out of context because you obviously
haven't a clue as to what con@&^!!versations were@&^!! had in the past.
I dare not laugh a@&^!!t you, after all a prideful and haughty attitude is
not looked upon favorably by God in the NT or OT.@&^!!@&^!!@&^!!
--
God Is Good...All The Time!
Chuck Suit
conclusion that there are only two possibilities pertaining to its
fundamental nature; Morality is either subjective, and necessarily
independent of any sovereign measure or it is objective, universal,
indisputable and applicable to the whole off humanity at any time and under
any circumstance.
I have tried to analyze the two possibilities. First, let us
consider the possibility that morality is contingent upon personal choice.
If morality is not universal, then it must be subjective, and personal. If
this is the case, then I find it only logical to conclude that there is no
true basis for moral judgment. If morality is not a thread that transcends
the ages, geographic borders and if it does not span ethnic and racial
divisions then there is no possibility of forming a judgment that is not
admittedly arbitrary and dependant upon one’s personal ideas of right and
wrong. In this instance, it is not possible for anyone to insist that Hitler
’s Third Reich or the USA’s treatment of the American Indian, or any other
deed is either good or bad. I can only say that based on my interpretation
of these actions, as compared to my socially formed moral conscious, I
disagree. To say, however, that something is unjust or inhumane, is simply
restricted if one accepts as fact, as the premiss to all standard, that
morality is a subjective construction of values having significance only for
the individual consciousness , a particular society or to a specific
historical period . Under these conditions, there is no impartial, unbiased
moral ground upon which to judge the actions of others or the deeds of
history apart from an individual formulation of morality . This formulation
is, necessarily, based on personal experiences within one’s society, family,
the religious atmosphere of one’s time and place, and one’s personal opinion
of these institutions and experiences. This leads me, inevitably, to a sense
of confusion, to the horrifying realization that I have no legitimate
foundation upon which to view the world, to understand the actions of
humanity as a whole, or to understand my existence.
The acceptance of subjective moral standards leads me to several
conclusions that I find unacceptable. First, If there is only subjective
morality, then the justification of laws, social standards, and any other
ideologies or institutions that attempt to regulate human action and provide
a map of conduct are proven invalid (nonsensical attempts at the
impossible). They would serve only to hamper my freedom, to oppress my world
view and restrict my self expression as a moral automaton This may appear to
be a radical statement but allow me to demonstrate why this is an
unavoidable conclusion. If all morality is subjective, then it is not
rational to limit its subjective nature by selectingt a point at which
morality is no longer subjective. This is a contradiction. For example, many
supporters of subjective morality assert that morality is a social
construct, a set of beliefs that are applicable only to the society in which
they have been formed and only to those individuals which constitute the
society in question. Why have the self-governing moral standards of men been
suddenly nullified and replaced by a socially objective truth? If morality
is subjective there can be no such thing as Moral Truth. How is it possible
to justify the sovereignty of the state as opposed to the individual with
regard to any sphere of morality? This is not a logical completion of the
idea of morality’s subjective nature. Society is simply a conglomeration of
individuals. The social standards inevitably arise from either a dominant
class or the common population as exemplified in the social institutions of
that society. Why must the personal morality of an individual be negated by
the assertions of the state? We cannot say that it is necessary to have laws
and order to achieve social stability since this is a moral judgement
(necessarily subjective) implying some universal standard of the good or
optimized social condition. You and I may agree that order is necessarily
established by imposing laws that are independent of individual morality but
this is an assertion of our own moral opinion. If we are to accept that no
objective standard exists for morality, then laws must be viewed as
abstract, arbitrary constructs that lack any true meaning. Therefore, the
individual has no principled motivation or impetus for acquiescing. If the
individuals obey laws simply out of the fear of punishment, then morality
does not exits. There is only the manifestation of mankind’s drive of self
preservation: Obey the rules to escape socially imposed punishment. All laws
become an oppressive force. If all laws are simply the imposing of standards
to achieve order, if they are the oppressive denier of individual desire,
then they will inevitably be defeated. My point is that it can logically be
argued, without venturing into absurdity, that if one accepts morality as
the product of individual consciousness then the natural condition of
mankind must be anarchy: The free expression of all individual moralities
with out fear of oppressive laws limiting their wills and actions
(lawlessness). Also, if this is the natural condition of man, then it must
be viewed as legitimate and any attempt to impose order unjustified. I
cannot see how such a belief, obviously contrary to the historical
demonstrations of man’s social nature, can be espoused. The goal of mankind,
as demonstrated by history, is not to disintegrate into chaos, but to strive
for and maintain order. Wars and conflicts of lesser intensity represent not
man’s underlying nature of anarchy and barbarism but the conflict
encountered by the assertion of subjective interpretations of reality and
necessarily of morality. The concept of personal, continent, conditional
morality inevitably leads one into a universe of constant flux, lacking
foundation upon which any human endeavor is justified. No view, no action,
no social condition, no form of government, and not even crude, raw violence
can be condemned. Under moral subjectivism they are neither better nor worse
the each other. They are simply different possibilities open to a moral
automaton and lacking any value that is not ascribed to them. Therefore, the
“rightness” and “wrongness” of anything is merely an illusion constructed by
personal judgment. This is the trap and ruin of such a moral view: Nothing
is right and nothing is wrong, actions are simply actions. Based on these
ideas, I have come to belive that morality is neither subjective nor
contingent on personal ideas.
Chuck Suit, 1997
http://pages.prodigy.net/suit
Kim Redman
<snipped>
>"The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of
>God," (Romans 8: 16)
Come on Ross, that's a cowardly response to both Alan and myself. We have
made the effort to answer you with reason, please have the decency to do the
same. Let's face it, the quote you provide could apply to Alan and myself
just as much as you might feel it applies to you AND YOUR OPINION.
Kim
Jason Hefner
the law did nothing without belief. The sacrifices did nothing without
faith in God. The Jews,of course,don't believe in Christ as the Savior
because he violated their laws concerning baptisim of Gentiles (nonjews).
He came for the non-Jews so that they might be saved. To demonstrate that
God's love extended to all mankind, not just Jews. Everything happened for
mankind as a whole at that time. The Pharisees at that time twisted God's
chosen people to mean Jew alone,not all BELIEVERS in God.
Delite
Ace Ventura wrote:
>
> Why?
> > Because the first 3,000 Christians from Pentecost A.D. 30 had no New Testament
> > but spent the time in their assemblies telling what they had seen and heard Jesus
> > do and say. I consider this the best model for modern Christians to emulate.
>
> You're right. If someone were to ask most Christians today the most important
> teaching of Jesus (as I have), they would be told it is to believe in him, so
> you will go to heaven instead of hell. Most notably absent will be the importance
> of living a life as he demonstrated, which was, after all, the essence of his
> teachings. Christianity has mysteriously lost sight of that aspect, other than
> giving it occasional lip service.
Yep. Lots of Christians today want to make sure you're saved and your
butt won't
suffer the slings and arrows of a blowtorch aimed at your posterior,
forever at that.
This is, to be charitable, Hollywood hyped Christianity and seems
somewhat at variance
with the Spirit of Jesus Christ. And not befittin' the God he called
Daddy in heaven.
Some critical theologians warn us those "killer-God" Christians are
suspect as
killer-Christians. For example, the author of the Gospel of Matthew is
always
inserting, for no good reason, words of hell damnation into the mouth of
Jesus.
Sure, this gospel writer was goaded to fiery retribution in the face of
Jewish
rejection of their Messiah, late 1st century hostility to Christians
from Jewish
leaders, and the indignity of being universally hoofed from the
synagogues. This was evil stuff. But the Christians should have, per
example of Jesus, turned the other
cheek, announced they (Jews) knew not what they were doing. And not
have blamed all
Jews for ever and ever of Jesus' crucifixion (it was Rome who did the
deed.)
And skipped any talk of eternal vengeance on the part of God. That is
simply
crazy talk form killer-Christians inventing a killer God, the very
antithesis
of Yahweh. Reference?- the life, words and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth!
Talk about
lip service.
--
SPIN YOURSELF UP ON MODERN THEOLOGY
http://www.orc.ca/~delite
Today's prominent voices of the historical-critical
approach to Christian scripture/doctrine.
Ace Ventura
Well put. I'm sure you'll incurr the "wrath of the fundie's" (sounds like a
Star Trek movie), but it's nice to have it told like it is for a change.
Ross Walker
Sorry you think that way but when it comes down to that's the only way I
can respond to Alan's query. I have tried, to the best of my ability, to
reason with you. I am no theologian but I know what I believe to be
true. Your "opinions" and arguments, though I confess have caused me to
think more about my faith, have not persuaded me to believe in your idea
of God.
I have followed the Jesus of the (true) christians for about 18 yrs and
have found no reason to turn away. I have said before that I have felt
my God's presence through both good times and bad. I have experience
"joy that surpasses all understanding".
I don't always know what God is telling me, but He speaks to me and I
know it I KNOW IT. There is peace in my heart and the aforementioned
joy.
You will never know this until you truly know Him.
Respectfully,
Ross
Kim Redman
,snipped>
>Sorry you think that way but when it comes down to that's the only way I
>can respond to Alan's query. I have tried, to the best of my ability, to
>reason with you. I am no theologian but I know what I believe to be
>true. Your "opinions" and arguments, though I confess have caused me to
>think more about my faith, have not persuaded me to believe in your idea
>of God.
>
>I have followed the Jesus of the (true) christians for about 18 yrs and
>have found no reason to turn away. I have said before that I have felt
>my God's presence through both good times and bad. I have experience
>"joy that surpasses all understanding".
>
>I don't always know what God is telling me, but He speaks to me and I
>know it I KNOW IT. There is peace in my heart and the aforementioned
>joy.
>
>You will never know this until you truly know Him.
>
Thanks for responding. Unfortunately you are assuming that I don't know God
and that only Christians can do so. You are also making the mistake that
most if not all people make, including myself, when we experience God's
power, and that mistake is that we automatically assume that the experience
verifies the accuracy of our theology. This is 100% false. What the
experience is meant to do is to provide us with an assurance that God loves
us and that we are right in searching for His purpose in our lives.
What I am arguing for is for truth to triumph over church tradition and
central to the theology of church tradition is this believe that the Bible
is the 'Word of God" and that it is inerrant and infallible. Truth demands
that we admit that this is not the teaching of Jesus, but simply a teaching
that evolved in the church at a time that we don't know. To reject this is
to reject the truth and if one does that, then there is no hope of ever
maturing in ones faith or of one ever finding God's ultimate plan for our
lives.
Kim
egor
>
> Kim Redman wrote:
> >
> > ,snipped>
> > >Sorry you think that way but when it comes down to that's the only way I
> > >can respond to Alan's query. I have tried, to the best of my ability, to
> > >reason with you. I am no theologian but I know what I believe to be
> > >true. Your "opinions" and arguments, though I confess have caused me to
> > >think more about my faith, have not persuaded me to believe in your idea
> > >of God.
> > >
> > >I have followed the Jesus of the (true) christians for about 18 yrs and
> > >have found no reason to turn away. I have said before that I have felt
> > >my God's presence through both good times and bad. I have experience
> > >"joy that surpasses all understanding".
> > >
> > >I don't always know what God is telling me, but He speaks to me and I
> > >know it I KNOW IT. There is peace in my heart and the aforementioned
> > >joy.
> > >
> > >You will never know this until you truly know Him.
> > >
> > Hi Ross
> >
> > Thanks for responding. Unfortunately you are assuming that I don't know God
> > and that only Christians can do so. You are also making the mistake that
> > most if not all people make, including myself, when we experience God's
> > power, and that mistake is that we automatically assume that the experience
> > verifies the accuracy of our theology. This is 100% false. What the
> > experience is meant to do is to provide us with an assurance that God loves
> > us and that we are right in searching for His purpose in our lives.
>
> some degree.
>
> > What I am arguing for is for truth to triumph over church tradition
>
>
> and
> > central to the theology of church tradition is this believe that the Bible
> > is the 'Word of God" and that it is inerrant and infallible. Truth demands
> > that we admit that this is not the teaching of Jesus, but simply a teaching
> > that evolved in the church at a time that we don't know. To reject this is
> > to reject the truth and if one does that, then there is no hope of ever
> > maturing in ones faith or of one ever finding God's ultimate plan for our
> > lives.
>
> disagree with God's Word about due to our limited minds but hat in
> itself no reason to reject it outright, for to do so is foolhardy (no
> offence intended). There are things in the Bible that I don't
> understand, but, to date, have found no reason to reject it.
>
> Respectfully,
> Ross
Ross,
Do Christians think it's an act of piety to accept the everything in the
bible as the infallible word of God? Why do many Christians choose to ignore
the inconsitancies and contradictions, and rationalize it by saying (no offense
intended), that they just don't have enough understanding to see that it's really
not a contradiction? Common sense in common sense, why throw it out the window?
Ross Walker
Ross Walker
>
> Do Christians think it's an act of piety to accept the everything in the
> bible as the infallible word of God?
No.
Why do many Christians choose to ignore
> the inconsitancies and contradictions, and rationalize it by saying (no offense
> intended), that they just don't have enough understanding to see that it's really
> not a contradiction? Common sense in common sense, why throw it out the window?
Tell me, when you read a book can you always know what the author was
thinking at the time? When you hear a song can you always know what the
singer is singing about? Of course not, unless you go to the author or
singer, themselves. And so it is with God. He is the true author of the
Bible, and unless we go to Him and ask Him with an open heart you could
not possibly know all of what the Bible is saying. Remember it was God
who created us not the other way round.
Respectfully,
Ross
PS: The subject of contradictions in the Bible was discussed in
"Christianity - The Religion of Baseless Assumption".
Kim Redman
<snipped>
The point I am trying to make is that the belief that God wrote the bible is
a human invention. When one reads the various books in the bible it is
clearly evident that they were written by normal human beings. There is no
mention of Divine intervention and only 1 out of 66 books makes any claim of
inerrancy. The people who finally compiled the bible as we have it today
made no claim that God told them which of the many books to choose, they
simply made a decision after, what I understand, was a good deal of
discussion and disagreement. The bible is clearly a collection of very
valuable historical documents, but to simply declare it to be the inerrant
Word of God without any basis other than a desire to believe it so, is
scandaless. It reduces God to the level of an imperfect human. The entire
belief is just an assumption with no factual foundations what so ever. This
is not to reject the very real value of the various documents, but to over
rate them is to destroy them. It is essential that we view them as they
really are and not allow ourselves to get caught up in religious whims about
it.
Kim
egor
>
> egor wrote:
<major snip for brevity>
> > Ross,
> >
> > Do Christians think it's an act of piety to accept the everything in the
> > bible as the infallible word of God?
>
> No.
>
> > Why do many Christians choose to ignore
> > the inconsitancies and contradictions, and rationalize it by saying (no offense
> > intended), that they just don't have enough understanding to see that it's really
> > not a contradiction? Common sense in common sense, why throw it out the window?
>
> Tell me, when you read a book can you always know what the author was
> thinking at the time? When you hear a song can you always know what the
> singer is singing about? Of course not, unless you go to the author or
> singer, themselves. And so it is with God. He is the true author of the
> Bible, and unless we go to Him and ask Him with an open heart you could
> not possibly know all of what the Bible is saying. Remember it was God
> who created us not the other way round.
No, I don't always know exactly what the author was thinking when he wrote a
book. If he didn't make a concerted effert to convey what he was thinking,
however, I wouldn't consider him a very good author. Would you?
BTW, have you read the Gita's, the Dharmapadda, and the Koran? If not, why
not? If so, did you read them by first asking God to guide you with an
open heart? If not, then how can you reject them?
Pastor Frank
> Why do many Christians choose to ignore biblical
> inconsitancies and contradictions, and rationalize it by saying (no
offense
> intended), that they just don't have enough understanding to see that it's
really
> not a contradiction? Common sense in common sense, why throw it out the
window?
>
You might as well ask: Why are there so many skeptics presuming they are
able to understand and judge the validity of Biblical philosophy, symbolism
and metaphor, something which takes us Christians a lifetime of study and
slow discovery and revelation in the Holy Spirit to understand? Is it
possible, skeptics are merely displaying an inordinary amount of
simple-minded hubris?
Pastor Frank
"He who does not love does not know God; for God is love."
--1 John 4:8
Adrian Planinc
touched by God:
"Prove that YOU exist!"
I am actually not any kind of drooling skeptic, my only skepticism is that
against human perception. Perception of reality, whether personal or social, is
a very iffy thing. Coupled with all of the psychological mechanisms that are
built into the human psyche to escape their pitifully small existence, we have
a need to feel a part of something "greater".
Well, we all are part of something greater, but to trust my own mind about the
exact details of what THAT is......well......it would be stupid!! =)
As far as "rescuing Jesus from the Christians"....its true! Human beings have
taken a great humanist mind (whether Divine, human, or fictitious is
irrelevant) and have made him into a mythical figure that is used to manipulate
the masses and serve as a tool of evil, political gain, moral monopolization
and colonization. Jesus is the Saviour, agreed, to the extent that He set in
motion the social events that led to the downfall of Slavery and horrendous
injustices in the ancient West. But we must realise that his mission was to
bring back society from the brink! It is no longer so!
His word in the authority of Humans is just WRONG. It is what led to
suppression of thougth. Burning of witches. Murder of entire populations of
infidels. Rediculous ideas about science which almost ended in the death
sentence of Galileo for proving that the Earth is NOT the centre of the
Universe. Etc etc.
In a word, I agree that Jesus taught Humanity a great deal about morality and
social justice. But we must understand the historical context of those ideas
and take them in a more philosophical and less dogmatic light.
Bottom line is, no matter what, we have to understand that the way we see Jesus
and the way we see God is through our own Human eyes! Therefore, that
perception cannot be perfect.
Adrian
egor
>
> egor wrote:
>
> > Why do many Christians choose to ignore biblical
> > inconsitancies and contradictions, and rationalize it by saying (no offense
> > intended), that they just don't have enough understanding to see that it's really
> > not a contradiction? Common sense in common sense, why throw it out the window?
> >
> You might as well ask: Why are there so many skeptics presuming they are
> able to understand and judge the validity of Biblical philosophy, symbolism
> and metaphor, something which takes us Christians a lifetime of study and
> slow discovery and revelation in the Holy Spirit to understand? Is it
> possible, skeptics are merely displaying an inordinary amount of
> simple-minded hubris?
So tell us something then, dear pastor: If it takes a "lifetime of study and
slow discovery and revelation in the Holy Spirit to understand", how is it that
most Christians haven't even read the scriptures of other faiths, let alone
devote a lifetime of study to them, before dismissing them out of hand? What you
are saying is one can not comment on the bible unless they've spent a lifetime
studying it. Couldn't that then be said of all the other holy books that you
Christians have condemned as false?
Gotcha!
Pastor Frank
discovery to understand the Bible in the holy spirit, how many lifetimes
will it take to understand ALL religious writings? If you believe, that no
salvation can be head before knowing all religious writings, you need to
subscribe to a religion believing in re-incarnation, don't you? As is, these
are all Christian NGs, and we have but one life-time to get to know and
understand the infallible Word of our God.
Pastor Frank
"God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him
must worship Him in Spirit and in Truth."
-- Jesus in John 4:24
egor
>
> egor wrote in message <376C0B16...@kibbitz.com>...
> >Pastor Frank wrote:
> >> egor wrote:
> >>
> >> > Why do many Christians choose to ignore biblical
> >> > inconsitancies and contradictions, and rationalize it by saying (no offense
> >> > intended), that they just don't have enough understanding to see that it's really
> >> > not a contradiction? Common sense in common sense, why throw it out the window?
> >> >
> >> You might as well ask: Why are there so many skeptics presuming they are
> >> able to understand and judge the validity of Biblical philosophy, symbolism
> >> and metaphor, something which takes us Christians a lifetime of study and
> >> slow discovery and revelation in the Holy Spirit to understand? Is it
> >> possible, skeptics are merely displaying an inordinary amount of
> >> simple-minded hubris?
> >
> >So tell us something then, dear pastor: If it takes a "lifetime of study and
> >slow discovery and revelation in the Holy Spirit to understand", how is it that
> >most Christians haven't even read the scriptures of other faiths, let alone
> >devote a lifetime of study to them, before dismissing them out of hand?
> >What you are saying is one can not comment on the bible unless they've spent a
> >lifetime studying it. Couldn't that then be said of all the other holy books that
> >
> You hate math, don't you? Use your head. If it takes a lifetime of
> discovery to understand the Bible in the holy spirit, how many lifetimes
> will it take to understand ALL religious writings? If you believe, that no
> salvation can be head before knowing all religious writings, you need to
> subscribe to a religion believing in re-incarnation, don't you? As is, these
> are all Christian NGs, and we have but one life-time to get to know and
> understand the infallible Word of our God.
Me hate math? Hardly. As for hating stupidity? Definitely.
You just made my point for me, you hapless moron. If one can't possibly
take a lifetime reading all the holy scriptures of the world, what makes you
think that only the bible is worth this type of lifelong study?
You were the one, Pastor Frankenstein, who suggested that one can't critique
the bible without a lifetime of study. So answer the question, instead of
being a babbling twit: How can you reject all the holy scriptures of all the
other world's faiths without taking (in your words) " a lifetime of study and
and slow discovery and revelation in the Holy Spirit to understand?"
Try using the gray matter between your elfin ears. How can you insist the
bible must be given to a lifetime of study before it's critiqued, but you
feel you can critique the scriptures of all the other world faiths after
merely a cursory glance?
Your doublespeak astounds us.
Kim Redman
egor wrote in message <376D34BF...@kibbitz.com>...
>Pastor Frank wrote:
>>
>> egor wrote in message <376C0B16...@kibbitz.com>...
>> >Pastor Frank wrote:
>> >> egor wrote:
Egro I see Lord Franky is trying to sabotage yet another of my threads. I
have put a filter on him so I don't have to waist any of my life reading his
insulting crap. I can only recommend you do the same. Responding to him is
like trying to communicate with a drunken idiot. He's just not worth the
time or energy.
Kim
Les Brown
As usual when speaking about the Jews, Christians show very little
understanding about Jews, their scripture, or their history.
One thing that Christians can never come to grips with is: why was
Jesus rejected as the messiah by his own people?; was it something
that the Jews missed?; was it that believers in Jesus found something
that no-one else could?; are the Jews inherently evil and wicked?
Of course the Jews rejected Jesus as the messiah, not because he
violated Jewish laws regarding baptism of gentiles - what ever that
is, if a gentile wants to have a dunk, that's o.k. - cleanliness is
next to godliness as they say. What Christians don't realise is that
rejection of Jesus is based upon the simple fact that in the face of
all the messianic prophecies contained in the Jewish Bible, Jesus was
a miserable failure - that is the main reason for Jewish rejection.
As far as G-d's love for all his creatures, gentile and Jew, Judaism
is superior in that it believes that all a gentile has to do to be
worthy of redemption is to behave as honestly and as honourably as he
can. Judaism believes that all the righteous of the world will be
ressurected, not just the Jews but it will include those people for
whom neither Christianity not Islam has touched if they are worthy. No
belief is needed in a particular person because that is illogical,
unjust, and antithetical to Biblical teachings.
The Pharisees did not twist anything, Christianity did. It made G-d's
chosen the likes of Adolph Eichmann who sought and obtained confession
before he was hung. According to Christian belief Eichmann went to
Heaven, yet the millions of Jews he killed did not because they
rejected Jesus. The injustice of it all!
Jesus was heavily influenced by Pharissaic or rabbinnical teaching.
Even the N.T. makes it clear that Christianity's first Jewish
believers where Pharissees until the gentiles took over the church.
You learn about the Jews more - from a Jew - before slinging off at
us.
Les Brown
Ross Walker
>
> <snipped>
> >> >
> >> > and
> >> > > central to the theology of church tradition is this believe that the
> Bible
> >> > > is the 'Word of God" and that it is inerrant and infallible. Truth
> demands
> >> > > that we admit that this is not the teaching of Jesus, but simply a
> teaching
> >> > > that evolved in the church at a time that we don't know. To reject
> this is
> >> > > to reject the truth and if one does that, then there is no hope of
> ever
> >> > > maturing in ones faith or of one ever finding God's ultimate plan for
> our
> >> > > lives.
> >> >
> >> > Well, here we must, I think, agree to disagree. There may be things we
> >> > disagree with God's Word about due to our limited minds but hat in
> >> > itself no reason to reject it outright, for to do so is foolhardy (no
> >> > offence intended). There are things in the Bible that I don't
> >> > understand, but, to date, have found no reason to reject it.
> >> >
> >> > Respectfully,
> >> > Ross
> >>
> >>
> >> Do Christians think it's an act of piety to accept the everything in the
> >> bible as the infallible word of God?
> >
> >No.
> >
> offense
> >> intended), that they just don't have enough understanding to see that
> it's really
> >> not a contradiction? Common sense in common sense, why throw it out the
> window?
> >
> >thinking at the time? When you hear a song can you always know what the
> >singer is singing about? Of course not, unless you go to the author or
> >singer, themselves. And so it is with God. He is the true author of the
> >Bible, and unless we go to Him and ask Him with an open heart you could
> >not possibly know all of what the Bible is saying. Remember it was God
> >who created us not the other way round.
> >
> >Ross
> >
> Hi Ross
>
> The point I am trying to make is that the belief that God wrote the bible is
> a human invention. When one reads the various books in the bible it is
> clearly evident that they were written by normal human beings. There is no
> mention of Divine intervention and only 1 out of 66 books makes any claim of
> inerrancy. The people who finally compiled the bible as we have it today
> made no claim that God told them which of the many books to choose, they
> simply made a decision after, what I understand, was a good deal of
> discussion and disagreement. The bible is clearly a collection of very
> valuable historical documents, but to simply declare it to be the inerrant
> Word of God without any basis other than a desire to believe it so, is
> scandaless. It reduces God to the level of an imperfect human. The entire
> belief is just an assumption with no factual foundations what so ever. This
> is not to reject the very real value of the various documents, but to over
> rate them is to destroy them. It is essential that we view them as they
> really are and not allow ourselves to get caught up in religious whims about
> it.
>
> Kim
I agree that normal human beings wrote the Bible, I have no problem with
that. However what we (christians) say is that the writers wrote their
books under the inspiration & influence of God. When we do things under
the inspiration of the Holy Spirit we are not always aware of it.
However we came by the 66 books we have today does not negate the fact
that an agreement was reached and the 66 books as a volume as withstood
the test of time,
Q: Can you explain how various people over thousands of years wrote
hundreds of prophesies and every single one of them pertaining to
the life of a Messiah were fulfilled in the life of Jesus?
Regards,
Ross
Ross Walker
>
> BTW, have you read the Gita's, the Dharmapadda, and the Koran? If not, why
> not? If so, did you read them by first asking God to guide you with an
> open heart? If not, then how can you reject them?
As for the Gita's and the Dharmagadda, I don't think I've heard of them.
As for the Koran, I've never seen any reason to read it. I have looked
briefly at a copy but I couldn't read it because it was in Arabic. And
to be totally honest, I do know the Koran's view of Jesus and it doesn't
accord with my own personal knowledge of Him. BTW I understand it was
written by only one man, Mohammed.
Just to add, I have read portions of the Book of Morman aafter praying
for God's guidence and found no problem in rejecting that.
Regards,
Ross
Ross Walker
>
> Pastor Frank wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Why do many Christians choose to ignore biblical
> > > inconsitancies and contradictions, and rationalize it by saying (no offense
> > > intended), that they just don't have enough understanding to see that it's really
> > > not a contradiction? Common sense in common sense, why throw it out the window?
> > >
> > able to understand and judge the validity of Biblical philosophy, symbolism
> > and metaphor, something which takes us Christians a lifetime of study and
> > slow discovery and revelation in the Holy Spirit to understand? Is it
> > possible, skeptics are merely displaying an inordinary amount of
> > simple-minded hubris?
>
> So tell us something then, dear pastor: If it takes a "lifetime of study and
> slow discovery and revelation in the Holy Spirit to understand", how is it that
> most Christians haven't even read the scriptures of other faiths, let alone
> devote a lifetime of study to them, before dismissing them out of hand? What you
> are saying is one can not comment on the bible unless they've spent a lifetime
> Christians have condemned as false?
>
I don't hear of too many Muslims checking out the Bible.
Kim Redman
Adrian Planinc wrote in message <7kfff7$lgg$1...@centipede.wantree.com.au>...
Hi Adrian
I have to say, "well spoken". However, it seems that you choose to blame
Jesus for the atrocities of the Christians, which I feel is very unfair.
Jesus was not a Christian and it is the Christians who must bare the blame
for their history and the evil it most certainly has been. If we can only
get the Christian theology out of the teachings of Jesus, then we have two
very different spiritual concepts.
I certainly hear, and generally agree with what you are saying, but I feel
it is important to put the blame fairly where it belongs. In the Christian
camp. Not with Jesus.
Kim
egor
>
> egor wrote:
> >
>
> > BTW, have you read the Gita's, the Dharmapadda, and the Koran? If not, why
> > not? If so, did you read them by first asking God to guide you with an
> > open heart? If not, then how can you reject them?
>
> As for the Gita's and the Dharmagadda, I don't think I've heard of them.
> As for the Koran, I've never seen any reason to read it. I have looked
> briefly at a copy but I couldn't read it because it was in Arabic. And
> to be totally honest, I do know the Koran's view of Jesus and it doesn't
> accord with my own personal knowledge of Him. BTW I understand it was
> written by only one man, Mohammed.
The Gita's, along with the Upanishads, are the holy books of the Hindus.
The Dharmapadda is one of the most sacred scriptures of the Buddhists.
> Just to add, I have read portions of the Book of Morman aafter praying
> for God's guidence and found no problem in rejecting that.
The point Ross, if you'll read Pastor Frank's original post again, is that
he claimed one couldn't critique the bible unless one devoted a lifetime
of study to the understanding of it's meaning. The question that begged to be
asked was, if Christian's believe that's the case, how can they then turn
around and dismiss the scriptures of all the other world's faiths, without
even giving them a casual read, let alone devoting a lifetime of study?
You can't have it both ways. Either be willing to devote the same amount
of time and study to these other scriptures before criticizing them, or
don't complain when someone is criticizing yours.
28SW2
Ross Walker wrote:
> I don't hear of too many Muslims checking out the Bible.
Too bad for them.
Perhaps they would more clearly understand that Mohammed was Elijah
and John the Baptist 'raised from the dead'--as is IMPLIED in the Koran.
Michael Cecil (
28SW2
Ross Walker wrote:
> I agree that normal human beings wrote the Bible, I have no problem with
> that. However what we (christians) say is that the writers wrote their
> books under the inspiration & influence of God. When we do things under
> the inspiration of the Holy Spirit we are not always aware of it.
This is an absolutely INCREDIBLE admission.
Your god makes you UNCONSCIOUS?
He speaks to you and you DON'T EVEN KNOW IT?
Have you even thought for TEN seconds about what the implications
of this might be?
Michael Cecil (
Ross Walker
Are you serious? Try reading my post again. I somehow don't think you
read it properly the first time.
Ross Walker
>
> Ross Walker wrote:
>
You are joking, aren't you?
Ross Walker
To a certain extent I agree. However, blaming the evil done in the name
of Christ on ALL christians is throwing the baby out with the bath
water. There are many of us who are ashamed of the behaviour of those
who call themselves Christians and yet have not lived the way Jesus
intended us to live. There are many christians and many churches, today,
that are working at throwing out any theology and tradition that is not
in line with the way Jesus shows to live: and also working at healing
the wounds of the past.
Finally, don't forget that many humanitarian aid agencies were born from
the church.
regards,
Ross
Ross Walker
As for Pastor comments, I, personally, don't agree. I have never read
the Bible cover to cover, nor have I spent hours studying it. However,
from what I have read and studied over the years I have come to a point
where I cannot reject it. Of other holy books from other religions, you
are right, I cannot reject them purely on their content, because I have
not read them. I admit that I do reject them because I have some
knowledge of the religion that they belong to, and that they cannot be
compatible with christianity. Just so you know, I have no problem with
people sharing their religion with me. But I have yet to find a better
one than my own.
Regards,
Ross
Kim Redman
I agree that the church has and is doing many very good things, but
unfortunately the church rulers have been and are guilty of much that is
evil and one can not just excuse their flocks because they do good deeds.
Turning a blind eye to corruption, hypocrisy and false teaching is not
acceptable. It's time Christians took responsibility for their own beliefs
and behaviour.
Kim