Jesus the Jew? First Christian? Holy Priest? Sovereign King (of the Jews)?
Jesus Christ is unique in several respects, not the least of which is the fact that in him alone centers the gospel of the grace of God. He has changed the face of history, for in him eternity has invaded time. God has become man, and human life has achieved through his redemption a significance that lifts it above the natural order and fits it for God's fellowship and service.
(Wycliffe Bible Dictionary.)
Tags
Who is online
547 visitors
The Coming of Christ
11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems;. . . He will rule them with a rod of iron; and. . . on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written,
“KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”
Jesus the Jew? First Christian? Holy Priest? Sovereign King (of the Jews)?
Give me that old time religion. Give me that old time religion.
Give me that old time religion. It's good enough for me.
It was good for the Hebrew children. It was good for the Hebrew children.
It was good for the Hebrew children. It's good enough for me.
Wait a second, the Hebrew children were Jewish!!!
<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UZWAtY2vShM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
One of the single most important films of all time.
An exceptional record of an actual event - I wonder if it's banned by some.
Prior to new members we didnt have too many atheists here. Now we may be 'treated' to ongoing debates about whether God exists (which is an unanswerable question).
Religion has helped countless millions of people feel better and more hopeful. It is a good thing on the whole.
It is a good thing on the whole.
Aint nothing wrong with pointing out the instances when it isn't.
Good people of faith can not and should not ever allow themselves to be 'charged' and summarily determined to be 'guilty' for the bad acts of evil men and women. As it rains down - use your umbrella to stay dry of it. I do. Now back to . . . .
JR
"Religion has helped countless millions of people feel better and more hopeful. It is a good thing on the whole."
Religion can be a source of comfort, that it maybe a false comfort is irrelevant, however organised religion, and its followers can be issue.
"Religion can be a source of comfort, that it maybe a false comfort is irrelevant, however organised religion, and its followers can be issue. "
It IS an issue. Millions have been murdered at the hands of religions followers throughout history. Christianity and Islam being the biggest offenders of this.
Is Jesus the First Christian?
28 And we know that [ a ] God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren ; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
>>>
We can see Jesus is the firstborn among Christian sisters and brothers.
Calbab
"We can see Jesus is the firstborn among Christian sisters and brothers"
Did Saul/Paul see Jesus as the Messiah?
Do Christians in general see Jesus as the Messiah?
1. Did Saul/Paul see Jesus as the Messiah?
2 . Do Christians in general see Jesus as the Messiah?
>>>
1. Compare: Luke 24: 46 - 47
Luke 24:46-47 New International Version (NIV)
46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Cf:
Romans 3: 21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in h]">[ h ] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, i]">[ i ] through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith.
<<<
2. Compare.
Romans 3: 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes : first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. 17 For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, e]">[ e ] just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.” f]">[ f ]
>>>>>>
So yes, Paul sees Jesus as the Messiah. And, Christians see Jesus as the Messiah.
Calbab
"So yes, Paul sees Jesus as the Messiah. And, Christians see Jesus as the Messiah."
And whose Messiah is he meant to be?
What faith does this concept spring from?
1. And, whose Messiah is he meant to be?
2. What faith does this concept spring from?
>>>
1. The Believers in [Him] out of all nation, inclusive.
2. Judaism and Christianity.
<<<
Calbab
1. The Believers in [Him] out of all nation, inclusive.
Are you sure of that?
Didn't you also post
2 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, a]">[ a ] magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, 2 “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews ? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him.” 3 When Herod the king heard this , he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 Gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the b]">[ b ] Messiah was to be born. 5 They said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea; for this is what has been written c]">[ c ] by the prophet:
6 ‘ And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah ,
Are by no means least among the leaders of Judah ;
For out of you shall come forth a Ruler
Who will shepherd My people Israel .’”
2. Judaism and Christianity.
Given that Christianity didn't exist before his birth, I'd say this is a stretch.
1. And, whose Messiah is he meant to be?
2. What faith does this concept spring from?
The concept begins in Judaism as I stated. Because of the two faiths, Judaism and Christianity, connective tissue it continues "springing" forward in the latter faith.
If you want to have a discussion about it make your case, please. If you asking me if. . . nah, I will patiently wait and let you expressly ask.
Calbab
"The concept begins in Judaism as I stated. Because of the two faiths, Judaism and Christianity, connective tissue it continues "springing" forward in the latter faith."
Did this "springing forward" happen in his lifetime?
"If you want to have a discussion about it make your case, please. If you asking me if. . . nah, I will patiently wait and let you expressly ask."
I'm attempting to figure out your logic and your position, The post I answered is a debate starting position, rather than your opinion, hence the questions.
Did this "springing forward" happen in his life time? Sorry! Can you elaborate? (Keep in mind, you are not giving any indication of your level of Bible knowledge, biblical understanding, or novelty. I have not true way to orient your question.)
Calbab
Within the context it can only mean the shift from from Judaism to Christianity, here
"The concept begins in Judaism as I stated. Because of the two faiths, Judaism and Christianity, connective tissue it continues "springing" forward in the latter faith."
We were discussing the concept of the messiah
If you're asking within whose life, I mean within the lifetime of Jesus.
Within Jesus' lifetime he is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecy of Messiah. During the life of Jesus he was not treated as a Messiah (king) and was ultimately and excruciatingly crucified. In the New Testament the Messiah is "Savior" (another title) and accepted by Jews (who receive him as such) and Christians alike.
More directly (if it helps you), Jesus is the Old Testament promised living and breathing, "Messiah." But surely the promised did not end in the Old Testament.
Calbab
Within Jesus' lifetime he is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecy of Messiah. During the life of Jesus he was not treated as a Messiah (king) and was ultimately and excruciatingly crucified.
Didn't his Jewish followers see him as the Messiah within his own lifetime?
More directly (if it helps you), Jesus is the Old Testament promised living and breathing, "Messiah." But surely the promised did not end in the Old Testament.
What I'm getting at is within his lifetime the religion we're dealing with is Judaism, not Christianity.
Christianity claiming Jesus as a Christian, is rather akin to Islam claiming him as a prophet, they're both doing it retroactively.
1. I see your point and yes in his earthly lifetime Jesus was the prophetic Jewish Messiah to his Jewish followers. Yes it is so.
>>>
Mark 12: 26 But concerning the dead, that they rise, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the burning bush passage, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? [ c ] 27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. You are therefore greatly mistaken.”
2. Following up on the heels of #1., it is important to understand that Jesus is not dead, therefore that 'ministry' and firstborn status continues today. For in the presence of God is all things live !
>>>
Ephesians 2: 11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
14 F or he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace , 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.
3. After Jesus' resurrection he has become a BRIDGE (Cornerstone) between Judaism and Christianity (named after the world "Christ"), between Jew and Gentile. In Jesus is is alive a blending of the past and the present created a new single household.
Calbab
I see your point and yes in his earthly lifetime Jesus was the prophetic Jewish Messiah to his Jewish followers. Yes it is so
So, Biblical claims support that during his lifetime he was Jewish. Would you agree this is a fair assessment?
I have no logical complaints about this. It is a reasonable assumption, that if Jesus did indeed exist at this point, and he did indeed preach a form of Judaism, then he would arguably be Jewish. Whether he was really the Messiah would be unimportant.
Following up on the heels of #1., it is important to understand that Jesus is not dead, therefore that 'ministry' and firstborn status continues today. For in the presence of God is all things live!
So, again it rest on Biblical claims.
Here is where I have an issue. I realise that it's a central Christian belief that he rose from the dead, but for an outsider it beings to stretch credulity to a breaking point. Without this central belief, there can be no reasonable claim that Jesus was Christian.
To answer some of the question posed by this article, logically it would depend on the individual answering. For a Christian, yes, Jesus was a Christian, but for an outsider, no, he'd still be Jewish.
I suspect that the closest I can get to an answer, it would entirely depend on an individuals personal perspective. I know this seems a scant answer for all the work you've put in, but logically it's the only one I can give.
John14: 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you foreve r— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him , because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be c in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you . 21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”
>>>
Acts 1: 4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5 For John baptized with a water, but in a few days you will be baptized with b the Holy Spirit.” . . . 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you ; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
>>>
Ephesians 1: 11 In him we were also chosen, e having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory . 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession —to the praise of his glory.
<<<
Note : This is not an attempt to convert you. It is simply to aid in answer your question based on the manner you asked it in your last comment.
True (Christian) faith is not some blind leap in the dark, as you often hear some suggest. Here is what the bold from the contextualized verses in my attached comment above mean:
1. A nd he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever.
2. The world cannot accept him , because it neither sees him nor knows him.
3. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.
4. T he world will not see me anymore, but you will see me.
5. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you .
6. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you ;
7. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession.
>>>
True faith is POWER to believe.
"And Jesus was a sailor when he walked upon the water
And he spent a long time watching from his lonely wooden tower
And when he knew for certain only drowning men could see him
He said all men will be sailors then until the sea shall free them
But he himself was broken, long before the sky would open
Forsaken, almost human, he sank beneath your wisdom like a stone"
"We can see Jesus is the firstborn among Christian sisters and brothers."
The problem with this is that it's based on a book that has been changed countless times in it's history. It's also written anywhere from 30 years to a century AFTER his death. You have to take into consideration that A LOT of embellishment has been inserted (i.e. the virgin birth is borrowed).
Personally I think "The DaVinci Code" movie has the right idea.
Remember how bad the Christian community was outraged when that come out?
Remember how bad the Christian community was outraged when that come out?
Yes, I do. If I recal correctly, there were parts they had to omit or soften before distribution to it might have caused a sort of revolution.
08/09/17 11:29:12PM @buzz-of-the-orient:
Can I please ask how?
For those scientifically Interested::
Yes No Yes Yes
First point on Da Vince code::No One know what the Original Language of the Text we now call the Pentateuch that is the First five books of the " Bible "
Second: A Code needs that the Letters and number remain constant what we do know is that language over time has slight changes, not " contradictions " as some in ignorance claim, just a natural progress of language, here is an example a few hundred years the work " wicked " was of the opposite meaning, another word " want " like " In Want " means need, a difference to what " want " means now.
So any one that wants to have a civil chat on this please feel free to respond.
How? What are editors for? They edit (meaning: remove or change).
08/14/1708/14/17 09:15:01PM @buzz-of-the-orient:
Buzz?
is that to Me, if yes what is the statement or question?
EA, I apologize. I find the indents confusing when trying to determine who a reply is directed to. I had suggested elsewhere and obviously need to do so over and over, that when posting a reply, one should address it to the person being replied to, such as:
@ Buzz of the Orient
(You must put a space after the @ or it will do something else)
AND provide a quotation of what is being replied to.
08/14/17 09:32:32PM @buzz-of-the-orient:
Buzz
Read this META article and try putting on application what is recommended, I am sure that will help
https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/33342/use-this-as-to-track-commentry-on-08-13-17-060117pm
08/09/17 11:29:12PM @buzz-of-the-orient:
Personally I think "The DaVinci Code" movie has the right idea.
errr The " How " was for this, when a language is unknown. how can it have a code that can be deciphered?
I was referring not specifically to the code, but to the plot of the movie itself. If you had seen the movie you would understand the meaning of the word "code" as used in the title. The clues leading to the answer of the movie were mostly symbols and the code to open the (was it called the "touchstone"?) was an English word. Numbers also played a part, such as the code for access to the safety deposit box.
08/16/17 06:40:15AM @buzz-of-the-orient:
Ok, so then it had nothing to do with the Bible, so why was it mentioned here in reference to the bible?
The movie opposed the view that Jesus was anything more than a human being, who fathered a child or children through Mary Magdeline and in fact there were current descendant(s). It dealt with the conflict between the Knights Templar and Opus Dei. Exactly what or who Jesus was is the topic of this article, and The DaVinci Code gave an answer to that, so it is right on topic.
08/16/17 07:10:13AM @buzz-of-the-orient:
The movie opposed the view that Jesus was anything more than a human being, who fathered a child or children through Mary Magdeline and in fact there were current descendant(s). It dealt with the conflict between the Knights Templar and Opus Dei. Exactly what or who Jesus was is the topic of this article, and The DaVinci Code gave an answer to that, so it is right on topic.
OK, Thank you::
One has to do with the Biblical Jesus, and the other is fictitious, and on some apocryphal books that have in reality nothing to do with the Jesus Talked about,,
But I see, where and how you got there, so you think that there is a possibility that Jesus had a Daughter, and it is the " Blood Line " to the " Antichrist ?
Considering that the word " Anti Christ " means what it say, " one that is against the Christ ( Messiah )
08/16/17 07:10:13AM @buzz-of-the-orient:
Opus Dei
I said nothing about or even thought about "Anti-Christ". Look at it as a theory that is contrary to the theory expounded by the bible. I watched a movie, I enjoyed watching it, and suggest you watch it too.
I made my point, and I'm through discussing it, especially discussing tangential matters such as Anti-Christ.
"We can see Jesus is the firstborn among Christian sisters and brothers."
Afraid not, the very definition of Christian proves that statement to be wrong. A Christian is a follower of Christ and Jesus did not follow himself.
@JohnRussell: "Now we may be 'treated' to ongoing debates about whether God exists (which is an unanswerable question)."
If you approach them with the right attitude the 'debates' will likely be informative and challenging.
@JohnRussell: "Religion has helped countless millions of people feel better and more hopeful. It is a good thing on the whole."
I agree. Religion brings comfort and guidelines for morality. Unfortunately, it is a double-edged sword both in terms of comfort and morality. The dark side of comfort is that the words of ancient men, while comforting, encourage many to forego critical thinking and simply adopt ancient guidance. The dark side of morality is that the morality of the ancients is best left with them. We do not want to be killing homosexuals, burning people at the stake or stoning for sexual indiscretions, etc. And we do not want to consider it okay to beat one's slave to death (considered okay as long as the slave does not die within a couple of days).
Well my well-prepared comment got 'tossed' even as I was copied on another entry. So I will just cut to the point:
We are surrounded by a plethora of ancients from Aristotle, Buddha, Plato, Socrates, Confucius, our own founding fathers who gave us a constitution which revered for its freedom still granted white men wholesale ownership over slave black men.
1. Germany invented the 4 pound fragmentation "Butterfly" bomb and the United States Armed Forces enhanced it into a 500 lb bomb containing 90 fragmentation bombs for use in 1945: See this interesting video.
2. Xylon B.
Zyklon B ( German pronunciation: [tsykloːn ˈbeː] ; anglicized. US : / ˈ z aɪ k l ɒ n ˈ b iː / (
listen ) or translated Cyclone B ) was the trade name of a cyanide -based pesticide invented in Germany in the early 1920s. It consisted of hydrogen cyanide (prussic acid), as well as a cautionary eye irritant and one of several adsorbents such as diatomaceous earth . The product is infamous for its use by Nazi Germany during the Holocaust to murder approximately one million people in gas chambers installed at Auschwitz-Birkenau , Majdanek , and other extermination camps .
Hydrogen cyanide, a poisonous gas that interferes with cellular respiration , was first used as a pesticide in California in the 1880s. Research at Degesch of Germany led to the development of Zyklon (later known as Zyklon A), a pesticide which released hydrogen cyanide upon exposure to water and heat. It was banned after a similar product was used by Germany as a chemical weapon in World War I . In 1922, Degesch was purchased by Degussa , where a team of chemists that included Walter Heerdt ( de ) and Bruno Tesch developed a method of packaging hydrogen cyanide in sealed canisters along with a cautionary eye irritant and adsorbent stabilizers. The new product was also named Zyklon, but it became known as Zyklon B to distinguish it from the earlier version. Uses included delousing clothing and disinfesting ships, warehouses, and trains.
In early 1942, Zyklon B emerged as the preferred killing tool of Nazi Germany for use in extermination camps during the Holocaust . Around a million people were killed using this method, mostly at Auschwitz. Tesch was executed in 1946 for knowingly selling the product to the SS for use on humans. Hydrogen cyanide is now rarely used as a pesticide, but still has industrial applications. Firms in several countries continue to produce Zyklon B under alternative brand names, including Detia-Degesch, the successor to Degesch, who renamed the product Cyanosil in 1974.
After World War II ended in 1945, Bruno Tesch and Karl Weinbacher of Tesch & Stabenow were tried in a British military court and executed for knowingly providing Zyklon B to the SS for use on humans.
3. Man's inhumanity to man is historic. That said what can we expect from a secular world that knows no God?
@Calbab : " Man's inhumanity to man is historic. That said what can we expect from a secular world that knows no God?"
That suggests atheists are more likely to be cruel to others because they do not fear the wrath of a god. While that might make intuitive sense to a believer who thinks s/he is good only because of fear, it is nevertheless wrong. Atheists, generally speaking, are ordinary people who simply are not convinced a god exists. It is a mistake (and bigotry frankly) to presume anything more into it.
Turning now to theists: I certainly can see how the very religious purposely act according to what they perceive God wishes. Some refuse to eat certain foods, work on Sundays, curse, have premarital sex, sit next to a woman other than their spouse, etc. Some engage in extensive rituals of praying and submission every day of their life. So that part seems true. But note that it works both ways. Case in (obvious) point is radical Islamic terrorism. Here we have politically motivated leaders rallying people to commit heinous acts on innocent people because they believe they are serving the will of Allah. Political action enabled by religious indoctrination.
I personally would prefer a world where people think critically and are not - through the extremely powerful force of faith - able to be manipulated to act irrationally. Critically thinking, psychologically normal people tend to not strap on bombs and seek to kill as many innocent bystanders as possible to earn favor in the afterlife.
I have to agree with TIG,
I have known many "religious" people who were anything but ethical and many non religious people who were very ethical. That is not to say, that this is an absolute, but TIGs point is that you don't have to have faith, to be a good person.
1. The critical point here is this: There are good and evil men and women EVERYWHERE dispersed through the timeline of world history! Here is one such example: The Sanhedrin was directly responsible for the conspiracy to kill Jesus , a man for whom the Roman Prefect, Pilate, found no fault worthy of the most excruciating of capital punishment: crucifixion. The death of Jesus was a negative religious blot on Judaism.
2. Cambodian Civil War (Khmer Rouge)
In 1976–77 the new regime, following the lead of Maoist China, sought to collectivize Cambodia totally, mobilizing its population into an unpaid labour force and seeking to double the average prerevolutionary yields of rice immediately and on a national scale. The human costs of that ill-conceived experiment were enormous, and the Khmer Rouge were widely condemned by the international community once the magnitude of their crimes became known, most notably through the release in 1984 of The Killing Fields , a film adaptation of the Khmer Rouge story. Conservative estimates are that between April 1975 and early 1979, when the regime was overthrown, at least 1.5 million Cambodians—about 20 percent of the total population—died from overwork, starvation, disease, or execution.
3. Man's inhumanity to humanity.
We are in agreement. Last week I submitted a blog article featuring PFC Desmond Doss, , a conscientious objector Seventh-Day Adventist, who served on the battlefield in World War II powerfully without ever learning to fire a gun. Such a powerful witness. Check it out!
The death of Jesus was a negative religious blot on Judaism.
Wrong. It was a negative blot on the Romans, who did the crucifixion. This has been long ago straighten out by the Catholic Church. You can blame the pharisees of the time for picking him over a thief, but even Jesus said, forgive them father for they know not what they do. He wasn't referring to all of his brethren.
The death of Jesus was necessary for the creation of Christianity.
Correct Squirrel, and if you read the text, the night before his crucifixion, Jesus understood this even after begging for his life. He accepted his fate.
The Jews cried out saying, “If you release this Man, you are no friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be A KING e]">[ e ] opposes Caesar.”
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
4 Pilate came out again and *said to them, “Behold, I am bringing Him out to you so that you may know that I find no guilt in Him . ” 5 Jesus then came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate *said to them, “Behold, the Man!” 6 So when the chief priests and the officers saw Him, they cried out saying, “Crucify, crucify!” Pilate *said to them, “Take Him yourselves and crucify Him, for I find no guilt in Him.” 7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God.”
8 Therefore when Pilate heard this statement, he was even more afraid; 9 and he entered into the b]">[ b ] Praetorium again and *said to Jesus, “Where are You from?” But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 So Pilate *said to Him, “You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?” 11 Jesus answered, “You would have no authority c]">[ c ] over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.” 12 As a result of this Pilate d]">[ d ] made efforts to release Him , but the Jews cried out saying, “If you release this Man, you are no friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be a king e]">[ e ] opposes Caesar.”
>>>
Quotes:
Pilate: "I find no guilt in Him."
Chief priests and the officers: “Crucify, crucify!”
Pilate: “Take Him yourselves and crucify Him, for I find no guilt in Him.”
Chief priests and the officers (The Jews): “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God.”
Actions:
1. Pilate d]">[ d ] made efforts to release Him.
2. The Jews cried out saying, “If you release this Man, you are no friend of Caesar; everyone who makes himself out to be a king e]">[ e ] opposes Caesar.”
Conclusion:
1. The Chief Priests and the officers would not accept, "NO!" for an answer.
2. "The Jews" threatened Pilate with an appeal to Caesar for Jesus' (alleged) offense to the Crown itself.
From your own text:
Chief priests and the officers (The Jews): “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God.
No sorry. The priests did not represent all of the Jews. This is the nonsense that caused centuries of death and misery to Jews across Europe. There are other translations of this that don't read this way, and fact: The translation of the Christian bible has been at least 3 fold, from Aramaic, to Greek, to Latin and then to English and other languages. Holy game of telephone. Just like it was misinterpreted that Moses had horns (actually the word has two meanings, the other being a hallo") after receiving the 10 commandments, this too has been has under gone the same thing.
Perrie, these translations* to English are all the majority of the U.S. can read and, thus accept.
I am not fighting over it*, but I am reporting what is on the page. That's all. I surely take your point that, "the Jews" are not the Jewish people inclusive, and I certainly can respect this.
It is for similar reasons I tell other people what immature, ignorant, bad people of faith, and those persons who temporarily borrow the "brand," that it is an over-generalization which ignores the complexity of what good religion is. Plus, it shows negligent disrespect to millions of hard-working and abiding people who only wish is to service the good in this world—as good secularist do also.
>>>>>>
* The translations I use are generally from the New American Standard Bible. Lately, I have been sharing from the New International Version Bible for ease with some others here. They are APPROVED TRANSLATIONS.
** Many people of sincere faith certainly know not all the rank and file Jewish nation stood against Jesus in Ancient Israel. Those believers throughout history with a negative agenda did and still say harmful things to cause harm and destruction, they are not people of peace.
Let me doubly add: I have never, ever, hated or disapproved of any Jewish person I have come across based on what the Bible says in several places about the death of Jesus. We certainly understood Jesus statement, "These things must come to pass." Unfortunately, for people of faith, history does record those hateful souls who did show hatred and such to the Jewish people. Sad folks indeed.
Calbab,
In no way do I think that you that you are endorsing hate here. But I did look over bible hub and there are many translations to John. Furthermore, the Passion is told also by Matthew and Mark, who were much closer in time to the death of Jesus and here is how Matthew told it:
They all recall the Chief priests not a generic people.
Thank you for understanding my heart and my role in continuing this line of argument.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
NIV. Matthew 27:
15 Now it was the governor’s custom at the festival to release a prisoner chosen by the crowd . 16 At that time they had a well-known prisoner whose name was Jesus b Barabbas. 17 So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?” 18 For he knew it was out of self-interest that they had handed Jesus over to him.
19 While Pilate was sitting on the judge’s seat, his wife sent him this message: “Don’t have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him.”
20 But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.
21 “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” asked the governor. “Barabbas,” they answered.
22 “What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah ?” Pilate asked. They all answered, “Crucify him!”
23 “Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”
24 When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd . “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”
25 All the people [ crowd ] answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”
>>>
Question:
1. Perrie, who is in this crowd ?
2. And when the crowd says, "His blood is on us and on our children!" are they affirming their role in the crucifixion of Jesus?
@perrie-halpern :
The Pharisees and the Sadducees were complicit in the Sanhedrin and its officers extortion of Pilate to crucify Jesus on behalf of the Jewish nation. The Bible is plain about this throughout.
1. New International Version
He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. (John 1:11.)
2. New International Version
26 “Fellow children of Abraham and you God-fearing Gentiles, it is to us that this message of salvation has been sent. 27 The people of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize Jesus, yet in condemning him they fulfilled the words of the prophets that are read every Sabbath. 28 Though they found no proper ground for a death sentence, they asked Pilate to have him executed. 29 When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the cross and laid him in a tomb. (Acts 13;26 - 29.)
>>>
1. Self-explanatory.
2. The people of Jerusalem AND their rulers. . . condemned Jesus to death. "Though they found no proper ground for a death sentence they asked Pilate to do so anyway (v. 28.)!
Critically thinking, psychologically normal people tend to not strap on bombs and seek to kill as many innocent bystanders as possible. . . -TiG
Aristole, an ancient, was a logic, psychology, and philosophy teacher of Alexander the Great, an ancient, who went on to wage the expansion wars of Alexander the Great.
Tamil Tigers, Sri Lankan rebel nationalists fighters, 'strap on' suicide bomb and kill 100, see video:
>>>
Man's inhumanity to mankind.
non sequitur
Science and technology used for good and to enhance human life is stellar!
There are plenty of instances in the world where science and technology in the hands of evil men and women are used to kill, maim, and utterly destroy lives. It does not matter whether you are religious or irreligious - evil is wrong all the time.
Man's inhumanity towards humanity.
@JohnRussell, Interesting comment:
Religion has helped countless millions of people feel better and more hopeful. It is a good thing on the whole.
But what about this one?
"Religion is the opiate of the masses." A variation of a quote from Karl Marx.
Could both comments mean the same thing?
Not a word was written into the historical record about Jesus until decades after his supposed existence and passing. Meanwhile, the historical record is filled with mundane accounts of his contemporaries.
Fairly recently it was discovered that his fellow Jews were not so uneducated as to not know how to read and write. Receipts, invoices, letters, lists, etc. have been found to illustrate this. Yet not one word about the guy who claims to be the son of god, can heal leprocy, walk on water, multiply food - all the things that would be the modern day equivalent to finding a cure for cancer, solving world hunger, and solving nuclear fusion all on the same day. Nope, not a mention of it - but hey, make sure you write down a shopping list for dinner 2,000 years ago.
Jesus is a farce. It should be obvious by now why he was invented.
You are so funny! Why do you care so much?
Are you in agreement with me? I assume so, since you haven't offered any counter argument.
Hal
"Not a word was written into the historical record about Jesus until decades after his supposed existence and passing. Meanwhile, the historical record is filled with mundane accounts of his contemporaries."
There are other possible explanations, for example
Jesus simply wasn't a big deal in his life time. He didn't perform the miracles attributed to him, or die on the cross, perhaps it was his followers that built the church, and the mythos.
This would also explain why there is no contemporary record outside of the NT.
I'm not saying this is what happened, I'm simply pointing out an alternative.
Sure - but that basically means he was not the guy he is purported to be. He's just a guy who pushed the wrong peoples' buttons and was killed for it, no different than the other malcontents of his day.
This would also explain why there is no contemporary record outside of the NT.
NT has always been an excellent repository of Ancient teachings-- as well as information about ancient artifacts, Information that has long vanished-- in many cases, scientists and Archaeologists alike from all over the known Universe come to The Newstalkers because they know that this is the only place that has such information available.
NOTE: This article is an attempt at a spin-off from a discussion which took place in the middle of "Debate: Is Gender A Personal Choice?" I desire to give time and space to it for its own consideration. Because much can be said smartly on this subject. Welcome, y'all!
2 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, a]">[ a ] magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, 2 “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews ? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him.” 3 When Herod the king heard this , he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4 Gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the b]">[ b ] Messiah was to be born. 5 They said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea; for this is what has been written c]">[ c ] by the prophet:
6 ‘ And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah ,
Are by no means least among the leaders of Judah ;
For out of you shall come forth a Ruler
Who will shepherd My people Israel .’”
>>>
1. Jesus was born, and being found so a prophecy of a king was fulfilled.
Jesus The Jew? First Christian? Holy Priest? Sovereign King (Of The Jews)?
Some people are going to believe that because Jesus was born to a Jewish Mother and raised as a Jew, he lived and died as a Jew. They can believe that if they want to.
Some others will say that Jesus broke away from the Jews and started his own religion. Later it was called Christianity, because of a title given him in the Greek language 'The Christ'. So, they say that Jesus was the First Christian. They can believe that if they want to.
Was Jesus a "Holy Priest"? To some yes, but to others he was a Jewish Rabbi.
Was Jesus the "Sovereign King (Of The Jews)"? To some, especially The Romans who mocked him, sure, why not.
Was Jesus just a man, and not a god or Son of God. To some, mostly atheists and non-Christians I suppose.
Does it matter? Yes to some. No to others.
But, one thing that almost everybody can agree on is: Many of the things attributed to Jesus as his teachings, which are written up in The Bible, whether you believe he lived or not, are good things to learn and know and follow.
As for other beliefs...
Well, since this discussion begins with a quote from The Book of Revelation I will share with all my belief that The Book of Revelation is entirely bullshit.
Well, since this discussion begins with a quote from The Book of Revelation I will share with all my belief that The Book of Revelation is entirely bullshit.
My new good friend Squirrel!! We will have to spend some time and space getting to the heart of the matter on The Book of Revelation. The operative question: Did the author of the book and the early Church accept the book as having great value. For that we need to read back into time.
The Book of Revelation. The operative question: Did the author of the book and the early Church accept the book as having great value
Who actually was the author of that book?
Who actually was the author of that book? —Squirrel!
Reference:
1 The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John , 2 who testifies to everything he saw —that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. . . . 4 John , To the seven churches in the province of Asia. . . . 9 I , John , your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus , was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. 10 On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, 11 which said: “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.”
<<< >>>
Answer: John the Apostle.
Other research says that John The Disciple/Apostle was thought to be the author of The Book of Revelation, but later on it was determined to be John of Patmos, not John The Apostle. There was some confusion as to the two being one in the same, but the original John the Disciple/Apostle of Jesus would have been well into his hundreds by the time the book was written, and at that time people did not typically live that long.
The author of the book is in question. And the purpose of the book is in question.
The witness of several early writers:
Justin Martyr and the Revelation of John
Irenaeus of Lyons Book IV.
J ohn also, the Lord's disciple , when beholding the sacerdotal and glorious advent of His kingdom, says in the Apocalypse: "I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And, being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; and in the midst of the candlesticks One like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment reaching to the feet, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle; and His head and His hairs were white, as white as wool, and as snow; and His eyes were as a flame of fire; and His feet like unto fine brass, as if He burned in a furnace. And His voice [was] as the voice of waters; and He had in His right hand seven stars; and out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword; and His countenance was as the sun shining in his strength."
<<<>>>
Here is where I ultimately end up on the timeline. We have to "call" or "settle" these matters of who/what/how comes with the best information we have available to us. Battling over dates and times and speakers and writers, defeat the purposes of the spiritual intent in the "messages."
Calbab, it looks to me like you are really convinced about the source, author and veracity of The Book Of Revelation. To be frank, I'm not. It's not relevant to this discussion, or the topic anyway, and it would take far too long and too much discussion to really go into it here on this forum. It's best to just drop the subject here and now. Okay. Thanks.
But, one thing that almost everybody can agree on is: Many of the things attributed to Jesus as his teachings, which are written up in The Bible, whether you believe he lived or not, are good things to learn and know and follow.
Good point!
I'm not a big fan of religion. (although I'm also not one of those Evangelical Atheists who feel the need to come on the Internet & constantly proselytize their belief system {Atheism}).
However I used to date a woman who was very into the study of Philosophy & Theology, and we discussed Jesus (not religion, not the man himself-- rather it was just the teachings of Jesus). And she gave me a whole new view of that. Because of what I learned from her, I was blown away by what he said and did-- very. very evolved spiritual teachings/
If everyone actually followed them-- the world would be a wonderful place!
I'm not a big fan of religion. (although I'm also not one of those Evangelical Atheists who feel the need to come on the Internet & constantly proselytize their belief system {Atheism}).
Here we go again. Please describe the system of beliefs that one must adopt to be an atheist.
@Hal-A-Lujah : " Please describe the system of beliefs that one must adopt to be an atheist."
Exactly. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god.
Here we go again. Please describe the system of beliefs that one must adopt to be an atheist.
You may want to re-read his comment. He was NOT referring to "an athiest" he was specifically referring to "Evangelical Atheists" which do exist. Thus, your request is quite irrelevant.
Do "evangelical" atheists all have the same system of beliefs? I don't think so. It's not a religion, with doctrines and cult like rituals. Atheism is simply a reaction to overt theism, and these ones you are referring to may have likeminded thinking, but they are under no requirement to believe in anything but the nonexistence of gods in order to fall under the definition of atheist. Without theism, atheism would cease to exist.
@Squirrel!: "He was NOT referring to "an athiest" he was specifically referring to "Evangelical Atheists" which do exist."
The particular type of atheist does not really matter if one is focused on belief systems. Atheism is not a belief system. Therefore an aggressive 'evangelical' atheist is not pushing an 'atheist belief system'. What makes an evangelical atheist different from an ordinary generic atheist is not a belief system but rather a desire to convince people to be atheists.
Please read his comment again, here is the pertinent portion:
those Evangelical Atheists who feel the need to
The poster was NOT referring to any "system of belief" but rather the type or PERSON who feels the need to PUSH his or her beliefs on others, as EVANGELICALS tend to. As there are Evangelical Christians, so too are their Evangelical Atheists. Both can be annoying. (As for me, I really don't care about your "system" or your "beliefs" or lack thereof, or anyone else's for that matter. Save yourself some typing next time. It really doesn't help to try to change the subject.)
p.s. One was NOT focused on the "belief system".
@Squirrel : " Please read his comment again, here is the pertinent portion: those Evangelical Atheists who feel the need to ..." The poster was NOT referring to any "system of belief"
Let's read it together:
@Krishna : " I'm not a big fan of religion. (although I'm also not one of those Evangelical Atheists who feel the need to come on the Internet & constantly proselytize their belief system { Atheism })."
Krishna spoke of Evangelical Atheists who proselytize their belief system and he labeled that belief system Atheism .
I repeat, atheists (evangelical or otherwise) are still atheists. Atheism is not a belief system.
Impasse
OMG-- looks like NT Live Chat is finally up and running again-- cool!
(Maybe Mercury finally changed its mind and decided to reverse its course?)
I'm not picky... It's the rest of the package that counts.
Only if it's gift wrapped.
The United States was founded on slavery.
There are people who teach that the (ancient) founders of the United States put into place a secular government, I will not argue the point, but if true, the founders included slavery, the ownership of another human being, in the founding of this land.
@Calbab : "... the founders included slavery, the ownership of another human being, in the founding of this land."
They did indeed. I do not understand the point you are making.
The founders of the Unites States with its newly minted secular government allowed slavery to prosper for nearly 80 years, before and during the Civil War. Many African slaves were massacred and the secular government of the United States did nothing to end the suffering of these people!
So when you criticize the bad actors in the religious sphere, save some time for a fair assessment of the bad actors in the irreligious sphere!
My critical comments do not depend upon whether or not someone is religious. What an odd point to make out of nowhere. o_O
1945 - The Manhattan [Good Science] Project!
Oppenheimer became politically active in the 1930s and agreed with Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard that the Nazis could develop a nuclear weapon. Following the 1939 invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany, Oppenheimer was selected to administer a laboratory to carry out the Manhattan Project, a U.S. Army experiment aimed at harnessing atomic energy for military purposes. He led the scientific end of the Manhattan Project in Los Alamos, New Mexico, beginning in 1942. . . .
The project was initially allotted $6,000 by the U.S. government, but by the time the work culminated in 1945, the budget had grown to $2 billion. That year marked the first test of the bomb, and with its success, two more bombs were deployed in the following month: one in Nagasaki, Japan, and the other in Hiroshima. These actions essentially ended WWII.
2017 - The SILLY-GENIOUS [Dark Science] Project!
Evil comes in all shades and sizes. Meet the Secularist-Dictator and the Machiavellian Christian In Name Only-President. Likely the next world demonstration of m an's inhumanity to mankind.
References:
1.
2.
3.
And J. Robert Oppenheimer, upon realizing what he had created, quoted the Bhagavad Gita when he said "Now, I am become death, the destroyer of worlds."
He was a scientist.
Kim Jong Un is a dictator.
Donald Trump is a fake POTUS.
What is your point of adding them all together in the same post?
I am associating people who use science and technology for good and bad purposes. Robert J. Oppenheimer, after witnessing the horror of physics visited upon millions of Japanese, realized with great dread what he wrought, though he meant his work for a peculiar good service, and he knew he could not remove such knowledge from the world.
When atheists point to the violent past (and it is true) of world religions, in my experiences they remain silent about the damages to life, limbs, and the environment-at-large caused by irreligious men and women using science and technology (and war) throughout world history.
Mankind is guilty of great inhumanity towards people. Evil can masquerade in many forms - as angels of light, or messengers of darkness. A fair-minded writer would point out all evil done by evil people and not forget to list the good done by good people everywhere no matter who they be.
That's all well and good, but does not seem to answer my question:
What is your point of adding them all together in the same post?
Why associate Oppenheimer with Kim and Trump. They are not at all the same, though Trump and Kim are forever linked together now. Oppenheimer really does NOT deserve to be associated with those two worthless people.
p.s. I posted two other comments for your consideration as well. I hope you find them and reply. Thanks!
(Squirrel! I shall look for those other comments! Going through the posts now.)
It was a hard call for me. Dr. Oppenheimer is the personification of the science that brought about nuclear bombs. This much is true. But, as you aptly point out, he was countering an evil ruler in Germany whom the scientific community was certain was attempting to get these nuclear bombs for world domination.
Point: Nuclear bombs are creations of (secular) science, not the Church.
Point: Nuclear bombs are creations of (secular) science, not the Church.
A valid point.
Counterpoint: The nuclear bomb was created at the behest of political leaders not scientists, and some of those political leaders justified their decision to promote the building of 'The Bomb' to end the slaughter and genocide that was surely against God's Law.
Duly noted. My point all along has been that in the natural , men and women can be evil no matter what his or her profession of faith is, or irreligion. There is insufferable evil pervasive in nearly every institution of power. Good is constantly under attack and those who do good are forced to acquire (muster) great discipline to keep their minds, actions, and spirits under control!
I Corinthians 9: 25 Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last, but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. 26 Therefore I do not run like someone running aimlessly; I do not fight like a boxer beating the air. 27 No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.
@Calbab : " My point all along has been that in the natural , men and women can be evil no matter what his or her profession of faith is, or irreligion. "
Is this not obvious to everyone? Have you found anyone who has claimed otherwise?
There are ' good ' and ' bad ' people (and acts by people) in every demographic. Religious people are capable of behaving badly as are the irreligious. Some Democrats behave badly as do some Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, etc. Some Christians have and do horrible things and this is also true of Muslims, Hindus, etc. Bad behavior crosses gender, race, ideology, politics, religion, geography, time-periods, IQ, mental-states, etc. boundaries.
There is no demographic that I have seen in my life in which ALL members are 'good' or 'bad'. Anyone who claims all 'X' human beings are [good | bad] has quite a burden of proof.
I think you are being anachronistic, applying the moral standards of one epoch to a different epoch. That doesn't work very well, usually...
Slavery was "ordinary", all across the world, while the Colonies were established. The institution was "naturally" introduced into the Colonies. At first, it had nothing to do with race -- most slaves were White. They were not numerous, and could be found in all the Colonies.
Through the 17th and 18th Centuries, slavery shifted, as huge numbers of Black people were brought from Africa. By the writing of the Constitution, slavery was a White / Black institution.
Debate about the morality of slavery began right from the start. That debate shifted along with the racial evolution of the institution. By 1860, that debate was largely about equality of the races. Slave-holders found support for the institution in the Bible, since slavery had been "ordinary" in Biblical times. (That was an anachronistic application of the moral standards of one epoch to another!
)
In 1789, slavery was still the general rule, around the world, but sentiment against it was already quite high. The institution was abolished by the French Revolution, before being reinstated by Napoleon. The Brits outlawed slave trading in 1807 (with the Royal Navy enforcing the law, even on flags of other nations), and then put an end to slavery altogether in 1833. France permanently followed suit in 1848.
So... a great deal happened across Western Civilization between the founding of the Colonies and the start of the Civil War. I think it's important to think about events, within their proper reference...
@JohnRussell: "Religion has helped countless millions of people feel better and more hopeful. It is a good thing on the whole."
@TiG: I agree. Religion brings comfort and guidelines for morality. Unfortunately, it is a double-edged sword both in terms of comfort and morality. The dark side of comfort is that the words of ancient men, while comforting, encourage many to forego critical thinking and simply adopt ancient guidance. The dark side of morality is that the morality of the ancients is best left with them. We do not want to be killing homosexuals, burning people at the stake or stoning for sexual indiscretions, etc. And we do not want to consider it okay to beat one's slave to death (considered okay as long as the slave does not die within a couple of days).
>>>>>>
Hi Bob. I am making a series of comments with an intended purpose to inform irreligious critics who visit discussions taking place which are affirmative to religion, faith, and spirituality that not all science and technology is harmless to mankind.
Christians know or can learn of the remarkable evil done in the name of God, by (wrong-headed) Israelites and (wrong-headed) Christians, but to be clear there are millions of believers who are conscientious daily and never cause relative harm to anyone through their personal religious experiences. Attempts to "hound" these millions of believers with guilt-tripping comments about the past which is beyond their control is to distract from good discussion or debate.
Therefore, as regarding slavery at the founding of our nation. I have recently observed taking place on NT a debate about the secular nature of the colonies at this nation's founding. By sharply pointing out to secularists that if they lay claim to the secular government of our federal government at its inception, then the same folks must, "eat the whole loaf" and claim the oppressive enslavement and dehumanization of the black Africans who were under this government's control.
As pointed out in President Lincoln's Inaugural Address above, 15 presidents came and went before he, himself was forced by the oddest of circumstances, to free black people from forced labor, ownership documents by other men, and 'damages to life and limbs' beyond the scope of this comment!
Lastly, I want secularists and atheists to stop with the self-righteous indignation and the implied cries of, "Our hands are clean!" when entering these discussions on NT, or in the past wherever. I will continue to point out that science and technology has been used by secularist to kill, maim, enslave, and annihilate, if and when needed.
Again, the debate you (and I) see about the Fathers' being (or not) religious is severely anachronistic. (Somebody made this point quite well not long ago, so I'm not the first...)
Everyone was religious in 1789. Everyone was Christian... inasmuch as going to church signifies those things. (There were very few Jews, and almost no Muslims.)
The actual content of their faith (if any) went from fundie to... atheist.
They all had a religious education, but that went from "Sunday school" to Doctor of Theology.
So... They necessarily had all that baggage somewhere in the back of their minds. But not necessarily in the forefront.
Each man was an individual.
Generalizations are probably not very useful.
Do you say our founders' constitutional federal system of governance was started with religious character or secular character?
"Yes" and "No"...
That's the problem. It's just not a black & white topic. There is no "like this" or "like that"... This was a group of people, in all their differences and changing complexity.
I agree with you! At the founding of this country there was great complexity. Men of faith and men of the world "jockeying" to position the nation with their ideas for its best face forward.
Even President Lincoln, the 16th president, in some of his speeches and letters made references to a supreme being over all mankind.' His personal beliefs or lack thereof aside, all such references were done to be inclusive of the worldview of all people, in my opinion. Thomas Jefferson signed the Declaration of Independence with the wording, "Supreme Judge. . . ." included in the signing document. All of this may explain the "tradition" we see in our president today who verbal appeal to something higher than the office of President.
>>>
Bob, are you aware there is an ongoing debate among secularists that at this nation's independence from England, at its inception, our founders established a secular government, and that America was not founded a Christian nation? (This won't be debated, I just want to know if you have heard of this.)
Of course I've seen these "debates". IMHO, they're futile. The story of a significant number of men, each of them a complex personality, simply won't fit on a bumper-sticker, and that's what most of these debaters seem to want.
@calbab: "I am making a series of comments with an intended purpose to inform irreligious critics who visit discussions taking place which are affirmative to religion, faith, and spirituality that not all science and technology is harmless to mankind."
Yet you quote me before you write this. Thus you are implicitly pegging me an individual who does not understand that science and technology have been used to cause harm. This is twice now that you have done this. I ignored the first.
What able-minded person on this planet is not aware that innovations are routinely used to cause harm? Seriously, do you think anyone in this forum is unaware that jets were used as weapons of mass destruction on 911? Do you think anyone is unaware of chemical, biological or nuclear weaponry? What about cyber attacks? I could go on with the obvious but I suspect that pretty much everyone in this forum could continue the list on their own. Further, I suspect nobody in this forum would claim that science and technology is never abused.
If you find someone who claims innovations and discoveries are never used for bad then I would like to discuss this with them. But in the meantime, either directly show where I argue that science and technology is always harmless to mankind or cease trying to link me with such an absurd claim.
As a set of English colonies, before the Revolutionary War, slavery was not illegal under English Law. It was not until 1833 that slavery was made illegal in most of the British Empire with the Slavery Abolition Act. Slavery lasted in the United States for 30 more years, coming to an official end with Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.
What is your point?
When the United States was created, in July 1776, slavery was legal in most 'civilized' countries. It was not veiwed as either Secular or Christian at the time. It was just the way it was. It was viewed as commerce.
Squirrel,
I thought you said we wouldn't have any more contact. I'm disappointed that you have decided otherwise, but being an eternal optimist, I'll give you a pass...
----------------------
What is your point?
Ummmm.......
I think you are being anachronistic , applying the moral standards of one epoch to a different epoch. That doesn't work very well, usually...
...
So... a great deal happened across Western Civilization between the founding of the Colonies and the start of the Civil War. I think it's important to think about events, within their proper reference.. .
-------------------
Squirrel... I learned "creative writing" a long time ago. Among many rules, I learned:
"When writing a didactic text, say what you are going to say, then say what you have to say, and finally say what you have said. That makes three times, so there's a good chance the reader will understand."
Please make an effort in the future... Thank you.
My comments are in reply to Calbab. Not to you.
As I said, I am not at all interested in your views on any issues. Please do NOT reply to me. Thank you.
Oh...
Wonderful.
I wish to share a darkside of the United States secular government lack of morality on slavery. Incidentally, this address comes from our President who haphazardly ended up granting freedom to black slaves void of any sense of moral reasoning :
>>>
Abraham Lincoln First Inaugural Address
March 4, 1861
Washington, D.C.
. . . .
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."
I now reiterate these sentiments; and in doing so, I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause -- as cheerfully to one section as to another.
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
<<<
1. So the founders and 15 successive presidents had no secular will to free the Black African slave from his tortures, sorrows, rapes, hangings, burnings, rakings, drownings, or mass murders. Not even the secular president who ultimately did because of a need to end white on white bloodshed.
2. Another case of man's inhumanity to mankind.
Many, if not most, historians studying the period would disagree with you. There was likely nothing "haphazard" about Lincoln's decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation to essentially free the slaves of The South. It was, most would agree, a cold calculated political decision to help the Union toward its goal of winning the war and reunifying The United States.
It is true that:
Lincoln was quite prepared to perpetuate slavery to save the Union, writing abolitionist Horace Greeley: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it."
But, it is also true he found that he could not do it, so he freed the slaves.
Characterizing his action as "haphazard" is historically inaccurate.
I know you weren't addressing me, but your Greely quote is misleading.
Lincoln knew the way the winds of history were blowing; that is was just a question of a few more years before slavery would be abolished... if the Union was preserved.
So it was essential to save the Union.
Lincoln had his priorities in the right order.
No, I was not addressing you. I cannot stop you from commenting, but I really wish you wouldn't. My comment was a reply to Calbab.
I know you weren't addressing me, but your Greely quote is misleading.
Bob, to be clear President Lincoln did know what the "winds" were blowing, because as a well-informed President his official letters point out that he, President Lincoln, knew that Europe and other countries were ending the slave trade in their lands. President Lincoln was quite conversant on the topic in his official presidential letters which are available to the public. Also, it is know on a personal note, Abraham Lincoln, the man, did not prefer slavery and wanted it personally abolished. He, however, did not want to buck the constitutional will of the people to see it realized.
That said, President Lincoln, did communicate in this manner:
Letter to Horace Greely:
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.
</>
Key line at the end of Lincoln's letter:
and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
08/14/17 03:56:48AM @bob-nelson:
May step in and take part?
Eagle Averro, if I may, Sure!
08/16/17 02:42:48AM @eagle-averro :
Sorry if I got it wrong. My understanding was you were addressing Bob! (I will take a look at what you shared and get back to you!)
08/16/17 02:42:48AM @eagle-averro :
See:
08/07/17 10:06:38PM @calbab :
Is Jesus the First Christian?
28 And we know that [ a ] God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren ; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
>>>
Question: Who is Jesus the "firstborn" over?
08/16/17 02:55:07AM @calbab:
08/16/17 02:42:48AM @eagle-averro:
See:
08/07/17 10:06:38PM @calbab:
Great Question we shall take it one step at a time::
the firstborn of all creation.
16 For in him[c] were created all things in heaven and on earth,
the visible and the invisible,
whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers;
all things were created through him and for him.
08/16/17 03:07:13AM @ Eagle Averro.
Good day! I will fill this in later but in the meantime can I ask you consider the meaning of the word, "justification" and the words, 'Jesus is the chief cornerstone.' As in, what is Jesus the cornerstone of. Back later.
08/16/17 12:07:40PM @calbab:
08/16/17 03:07:13AM @ Eagle Averro.
" The Kingdom of God "
08/16/17 03:07:13AM Hello, eagle-averro:
>>>
From an earlier comment by Calbab:
1. . . . He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son , so that [Jesus] would be the firstborn among many brethren ; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified ; and these whom He justified,. . . .
Romans 5
1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we a have peace with God through our Lord Jesus ChristEphesians 2
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.
>>>Was Jesus a Jew?
Obviously yes. He was born into a Jewish family, raised as a Jew, went to Temple as a Jew, and was called by many of his followers their "Rabbi" a name of honor given Jewish Teachers. No question whatsoever that Jesus was a Jew.
But what of the next question: Was Jesus the First Christian?
Some will say "No." simply because the term "Christian" was not in use during his lifetime. Even though he was referred to as "Jesus The Christ" they claim that was also a term not used until after he was dead, so he could not have been the first Christian.
That is totally flawed logic.
Here is why:
Think of the term "human", because there was a first "human". But, you know what? When that first human evolved into being human, the term "human" had not yet been invented, created, coined, whatever. So how could that first human being have been a human when there was no term for "human" at the time he (or she) evolved into the "first human"? Ask science. Scientists know. There were humans long before the term "human" existed. That is a scientific fact.
Thus, Jesus was the first Christian long before the term "Christian" existed. After all, Jesus was "The Christ". The term "Christian" was created specifically to identify the followers and believers in The Christ. Jesus was "The Christ". Jesus was The First Christian even though the term to describe him that way was not created until sometime after he died. The FACT, the scientific fact remains that Jesus was THE FIRST CHRISTIAN.
LOGIC.
Scientific logic.
Was Jesus a Preist? No. The Preisthood was a much later creation of The Catholic Church and Jesus was never ordained into it.
Was Jesus the Sovereign King (Of The Jews). No. He was only the "King of The Jews" to the Romans who crucified and mocked him. He never claimed to be an earthly king, ever. He said only that his kingdom was not of this world.
But, Jesus was The First Christian and that is a scientific fact, as proved for all those scientists out there, and other people too.
Re: 08/16/17 03:18:04AM @ squirrel:
Sorry about the long delay. Today, I have been dealing with a "sleep" issue or lack thereof with my Windows 10 computer upgrade!
>>>>>>>
1. Yes, Jesus is the first Christian, that is, "the firstborn of many brethren." Jesus is preeminent in that he founded the Christian faith. Not Paul, not the other Apostles—Jesus.
2. Was Jesus a Priest? Jesus is a High Priest. Hebrews 6: 19 This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a [hope] both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil, 20 where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizede k.
3. Was Jesus the Sovereign King (Of The Jews)? Yes, Jesus is king of the Jews from his born. His is a spiritual kingdom and a future kingdom:
Revelations 19: 16 A nd on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “ KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS .”
Luke 1: 26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.” 29 But she was very perplexed at this statement, and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was. 30 The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. 31 “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.
32 “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; 33 and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.”
34 Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” 35 The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.
Not a problem regarding the delay of your reply. There's been plenty to keep me busy today.
Ragarding your reply, first let me say, that your beliefs and your sources are perfectly valid for you and I will not dispute them. However, as for me, they don't really work. As you know I don't put any credence into The Book of Revelation. But that's okay if you choose to use that as a source that you believe in, then more power to you. Regarding Jesus being a "Priest" I have never seen anything in MML&J that referred to him as a 'Priest' of the Jews. He was called Rabbi, but I don't recall anyone calling him Priest, and it was the Priests of the Jewish Heirarchy who turned him over to the Romans. Same for King of the Jews, never saw it mentioned in MML&J.
My big issue has always been with those who claim to know science and claimed he was not a Christian because the term did not exist in his lifetime. I hope I finally proved to them the term did not need to exist during his lifetime for him to be The Christ and thus the First Christian. Scientifically, I'm pretty sure that question is now resolved.
It's been an interesting exercise and discussion. Thank you!
08/16/17 11:46:51PM @ squirrel:
It's been an interesting exercise and discussion. Thank you!
And, thank you!
MML&J? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.
Squirrel, Are you a Jew or Gentile? The question is rhetorical. I ask it because I want to put an emphasis on how the first earthly followers of Jesus outside of Judaism learned about Jesus and the 12 Apostles: It was through the travels and church plantings of Apostle Paul.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John who are credited with writing the Gospels did not spear-head any project that gave you, me, or any nation outside the Jewish nation a beginning knowledge of Jesus Christ.
As people outside the limits of Israel-proper and Judaism, I argue spreading the Gospels (MMLJ) would have been severely impeded, if not occurring at all.
My point: We can not single out MMLJ as having more importance than the writings and letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles (Paul). No Paul - no knowledge of the life of Jesus outside of Israel.
But my point is: you can single out Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet and GMC Trucks as having more importance than Oldsmobile, Pontiac, LaSalle, Geo, Saturn, Hummer, because the former brands do have more importance than the latter. Yet, without all the brands previously existing there may well have been no greater General Motors Corporation. And without the corporation of all brands together under one umbrella (or individual Books collected in The Bible) none of the individual brands may have survived to compete against Ford or Chrysler.
Also, as the song says "A spoon full of sugar makes the medicine go down". Paul may have at one time been the spoon full of sugar, but the teachings of Jesus have always been and still are the medicine. Now that the world knows of Jesus and his message, Paul is less important and his reinterpretations less relevant.
So, I will stay with MML&J and not be too concerned with whatever comes before or after those 4 books in The Bible.
So, I will stay with MML&J and not be too concerned with whatever comes before or after those 4 books in The Bible.
@Bob-Nelson:
Is that not what most rational Christians do? In my experience (and I am surrounded by Christians in everyday life) Christians hold to a few principles (e.g. love thy neighbor ...) and treat the Bible (especially the OT) allegorically. They accept (as in do not deny but not as in wholeheartedly believe) the Bible as the word of God but are not concerned with word choice - only the most general abstract ideas matter. If specific passages in the Bible connote a distasteful meaning they dismiss them. In result, they cherry pick and abstract the Bible to support their good moral principles. Confirmation bias in effect.
That is my observation for most Christians. I recognize there are those who go entirely literal, entirely allegorical and everything in-between. IMO most Christians are not well educated in the Bible.
Ultimately, why even bother with the Bible? The Bible might be an historical man-made source for good moral lessons if one can navigate around the horrible parts. That part makes sense. But how can one logically consider the Bible to be the word of God if one cherry picks (and abstracts) that which one will accept as such? Seems far more reasonable to consider it to be the writings of ancient men pretending to be God so as to influence their peers.
TiG,
There can't be a zillion ways to approach the NT. Either it was dictated by God or it wasn't. If it wasn't dictated by God, then it was written by men, some decades after the crucifixion, and re-re-re-copied / translated across the centuries. We've all played the game of repeating a story over and over, around a large circle, and having a different story at the end.
There's no chance at all that the text is word-for-word accurate.
OTOH, Christ's sermons form a coherent set. (Analysis says that some were written considerably later, but they're still coherent.) It seems reasonable to me accept the sermons, and stop there. The rest is superfluous anyway.
"Why bother with the Bible at all?" is a good question. I'm a Christian by accident of birth. Most Japanese are Shintoists for the same reason. Et cetera.
Jesus's message is a good one, so I see no reason to break with my heritage. I consider the Bible (bio and message) to be sort of an "educational support", helpful for understanding the application of the message. ("Do I even have to love those miserable Samaritans?!")
But if someone else takes a different path, that's OK. There are a lot of expressions of the Golden Rule. I cannot imagine Jesus ("One commandment above all others, love God and your fellows") being upset if that love is expressed without reference to Him.
@Bob-Nelson: "...it was written by men, some decades after the crucifixion, and re-re-re-copied"
I agree, we know it was written by men decades after Jesus' death and we know it was transcribed by men who did indeed introduce errors and 'corrections'. We know this as a result of biblical scholarship.
So your response makes good sense to me. It seems (TO ME) that you do not hold that the coherent set attributed to Jesus is necessarily the word of God. If one does, however, consider this set to be the word of God then why would the balance of the NT and indeed the Bible, Qur'an, etc. not also be the word of God?
In other words, I get why people would secularly accept pieces of the Bible they consider to be wise. But it is difficult to imagine how one, logically, can accept portions of the word of God and dismiss others portions of the word of God. To wit, if the Bible is the word of God, selective acceptance is not an option. Your thoughts?
But it is difficult to imagine how one, logically, can accept portions of the word of God and dismiss others portions of the word of God . To wit, if the Bible is the word of God, selective acceptance is not an option. Your thoughts?
I agree with you.
There's no middle ground. Either the Bible is inerrant, with all the impossible incoherence that entails, or it is a book to be considered as one would consider any other in similar circumstances (which are, obviously, unique
.)
It gets scholarly analysis unequaled by any other book. So we know more about it than any other book. Every sentence has been analyzed upside down and inside out. Curiously, that has not changed its "inspirational" qualities for many.
Personally, I wouldn't use the word "inspirational", but more like "informative". I deeply admire Jesus of Nazareth as a thinker and teacher (preacher). The Bible tells me about Him. Having never benefitted from a bright light on the road to wherever, I can't say anything more.
08/17/17 04:34:41AM @ squirrel:
I’m okay with that if you are okay with it.
I can be indulgent and say on that Paul authenticated his service to the Gentiles (the nations) by meeting with the original disciples/Apostles and getting their stamps of approval to go to the nations. Also, he met with Jesus on the Road to Damascus (we are all familiar with).
But no worries. This is a discussion not a persuasive sell. (I am not a salesman.) HA!
Glad to know you are okay with it.
But no worries. This is a discussion not a persuasive sell. (I am not a salesman.) HA!
But Paul of Tarsus was, in fact, a salesman. He sold Christ and Christianity, and he was very good at it. Oh, he may have started out as a Roman Tax Collector, but he ended up as the greatest saleman in the history of The Christian Faith. (Jesus was the product Paul was selling.)
And like any saleman, sometimes he had to taylor his sales pitch (sugar coat it) for certain communities, so his "interpretations" of Jesus' teachings may not have always been what Jesus taught or the message Jesus was trying to convey. In such cases, I prefer to go back to the source, Jesus, and discount the sales pitch and the salesman.
But, we must thank Paul for creating the GMC of Religion with his dedicated promotion of Christianity.
IMNAAHO, Christianity was defined during Jesus's ministry. There was no need to tack anything more onto His teachings. So there are a bunch of things that are commonly found, that I ignore, like the Trinity and the virgin birth.
I am a KISS Christian: Keep It Simple, Stupid!
My source says this:
Christ (title) - Wikipedia
So, during his lifetime he was apparently not called The Christ. But, seriously, it really doesn't matter now.
08/17/17 05:27:53PM @ squirrel:
So, during his lifetime he was apparently not called The Christ. But, seriously, it really doesn't matter now.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Squirrel! So, you are correct! Though these several close disciples had physical confirmation of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God, the Jewish nation as a whole did not until much later on! See below.
>>>
Peter Declares That Jesus Is the Messiah
Mark 8:
27 Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?” 28 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.” 29 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.”
30 Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.
The Transfiguration.
Mark 9:
2 After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them. 3 His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them. 4 And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus.
5 Peter said to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.” 6 (He did not know what to say, they were so frightened.)
7 Then a cloud appeared and covered them, and a voice came from the cloud: “This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!” 8 Suddenly, when they looked around, they no longer saw anyone with them except Jesus.
9 As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. 10 They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what “rising from the dead” meant.
>>>
Though these several close disciples had physical confirmation of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God, the Jewish nation as a whole did not until much later on! See below.
That reminds me of Early Adopters for new technology. Sometimes it takes time for a product to catch on, like the iPad, so the Early Adopters are the real pioneers who see the value in something before others do.
Kind of like Peter and the other 12 (even Thomas eventually), who recognized Jesus as The Messiah, when most of the rest of the Jewish people did not, and actually rejected him. They were looking for a new King David who would lead them in battle against The Romans and all other occupying forces, and physically cast them out of Israel. Jesus was about as far from that model as he could be, with his "turn and offer the other cheek" philosophy.
So there was a split in the Jewish community. Those who believed Jesus was the prophesied Messiah, and those who just would not believe God would send them a weakling like Jesus to lead them out of the strife they were suffering under. Few Jews followed Jesus, but he and his apostles opened their arms to accept Gentiles as well, and that was another thing real Jews could not accept. The Jews were 'The Chosen People', they were 'God's Chosen People'. How in the world could a true leader or new 'King of The Jews' accept non-Jews as well? Those Jews decided he was not The Messiah and never called him that. I think many if not most Jews of today are still waiting for The Messiah to come forth. That same attitude may be at the root of some of Israel's problems today, who knows?
But that's just the way I look at it. Others may disagree, and that's okay. We all have our own view that we accept. Right?
08/17/17 08:14:52PM @ squirrel:
Those on the "bleeding" edge. I comprehend.
Right, I agree with you about laggards who are still waiting for the Messiah to come!
I have been following the (very interesting) conversation between you and EA.
This last post, with a verse from Romans, presents an excellent example of how hard it is to be sure about anything in the Bible...
Supposedly, the book was written almost 30 years after the crucifixion by a man who never met Jesus. And to make things even shakier, we have only copies of copies of copies, rewritten over the centuries... and not necessarily scrupulously respecting the text being copied.
(We cannot apply modern criteria about "faithful copy": that would be severely anachronistic. Back in the day, a copyist could modify the text if he felt he made it "better"... by whatever criteria he chose to apply...)
So... when we come to an ambiguity like the one you underscore, there are so many possible explanations that we are ultimately just rolling dice to decide.
Personally, I suspect that the ambiguity is intentional.
Good day! I see your comment and will reply soon.
@Bob-Nelson: "So... when we come to an ambiguity like the one you underscore, there are so many possible explanations that we are ultimately just rolling dice to decide."
Agreed. The many interpretations of Bible passages illustrate the ambiguity. Further, as you later observe, vague language offers those in power the flexibility to use God to justify their actions. Given many of the various components of the Bible evolved under 'political circumstances', the vague language quite likely was intentional.
08/16/17 03:37:23AM @bob-nelson:
But avoiding a direct communication, is that because of a deep awareness of erroneous postulations?
But avoiding a direct communication
WTF??
Re: 8/16/17 03:37:23AM @ bob-nelson: Sorry for the delay. Windows 10 issues today.
Bob, I am not really clear on what comment you are referring to. Sorry.
There were two posts referring to Romans. I posted in response to this one .
08/16/17 11:14:20PM @bob-nelson:
There were two posts referring to Romans. I posted in response to this one.
08/16/17 03:42:14PM @eagle-averro:
08/16/17 12:07:40PM @calbab:
08/16/17 03:07:13AM @ Eagle Averro.
" The Kingdom of God "
EA,
I have no idea what you want. If you have a question, please ask. Being cryptic is a very good way to not be understood.
Re: 08/16/17 03:37:23AM @ bob-nelson:
You mean the use of the term, "first-born" in two different written constructions? "First-born" used in two different contexts? Jesus, as I noted in several of today's comments is firstborn in each sense. If that truly is your question/comment. If not let me know.
As for the authentication of manuscripts and translations, that can be a whole other article!
You mean the use of the term, "first-born" in two different written constructions?
I really do not even notice single words, or two-word combinations. I don't think they are sufficient for interpretation. I was looking at the entire sentence:
He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren
The term "Son" may be symbolic or strict. The word "firstborn" seems to indicate "siblings"... but they, too, may be symbolic or literal...
08/17/17 12:38:17AM @ bob-nelson:
The term "Son" may be symbolic or strict. The word "firstborn" seems to indicate "siblings"... but they, too, may be symbolic or literal...
>>>
The term "firstborn" in the Bible is literal and figuratively used. In that the firstborn of all life was considered in Ancient Israel to be holy unto God (Literal. Numbers 13: "For all the firstborn are Mine; on the day that I struck down all the firstborn in Israel, from man to beast. They shall be mine; I am the Lord.")
Figurative. Jesus is the firstborn after his death, burial, and resurrection ("I have not yet ascend to my father." . . . "No man or woman comes to the father except through me.") As a result, it is Jesus who is the firstborn of many brethren to spiritually come to God.
The term "firstborn" in the Bible is literal and figuratively used.
I don't see how we can know what the author intended. We have no feedback from him.
08/17/17 04:50:30AM @ bob-nelson:
The term "firstborn" in the Bible is literal and figuratively used.
I don't see how we can know what the author intended. We have no feedback from him.
>>>
New American Standard Bible (NASB]
Acts 17:
10 As soon as it was night, the believers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
>>>
Bob, so the moral is to apply oneself daily or as often as one can to SEE if it makes sense. The writers of the Bible wrote in different times, places, and in across great distances. Some not even knowing what the others had written. Yet, when these writings are put together a certain consistency permeates what we call today, "Books of the Bible." The hackneyed expression, "Many people" is appropriate here because "many people" read in bits and spurts and then run off to lecture other people or simply to criticize what they know not or have no power of understanding within them to comprehend.
The Bible is plain about this:
NASB
I Corinthians 2:
10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. 14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
>>>
Bob, so there you have it something more than just a 'flat' reading of words on the page is required. One has to have a spiritual "appetite" to study and understand in hopes that the meaning will "pop," to use a popular expression. Then, you began to see and understand meanings, connections, and words on a deeper level. Otherwise, the words simply lay on the page.
But this is not a sales job. I simply enjoy sharing and discussing the Bible. And to that I have much more to say, but only as time and interest dictates.
I'm sorry, but I pay little attention to Pauline texts. IMHO, Paul complicated things unnecessarily, as with "the Spirit of God" in this passage. Such complications easily become distractions from Christ's simple message. And I agree with John that any distraction is to be rejected.
"Love your fellows; no exceptions." That's enough for me.
08/17/17 04:50:30AM @ bob-nelson:
The term "firstborn" in the Bible is literal and figuratively used.
I don't see how we can know what the author intended. We have no feedback from him.
>>>
You can compare scripture to scripture, or words to words, if you prefer - where possible. See how the writer repeatedly uses a word and then compare across other writers on the same or similar subjects. It can be considered as, reading the Bible for all its worth!
08/16/17 02:27:46AM @calbab:
Eagle Averro, if I may, Sure!
OK, thanks two days later but " better late then never " :-)
Jesus was a Jew, so that be Yes
Jesus as a Christian that be NO, the Name was Given to the group going by the Ixthos and " The Way "
Early usage
The first recorded use of the term (or its cognates in other languages) is in the New Testament, in Acts 11:26,[24] after Barnabas brought Saul (Paul) to Antioch where they taught the disciples for about a year, the text says: "[...] the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." The second mention of the term follows in Acts 26:28,[25] where Herod Agrippa II replied to Paul the Apostle, "Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." The third and final New Testament reference to the term is in 1 Peter 4:16, which exhorts believers: "Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf."[26]
Kenneth Samuel Wuest holds that all three original New Testament verses' usages reflect a derisive element in the term Christian to refer to followers of Christ who did not acknowledge the emperor of Rome.[27] The city of Antioch, where someone gave them the name Christians, had a reputation for coming up with such nicknames.[28] However Peter's apparent endorsement of the term led to its being preferred over "Nazarenes" and the term Christianoi from 1 Peter becomes the standard term in the Early Church Fathers from Ignatius and Polycarp onwards
King:: but if we are speaking about the same individual as the one spoken of in Genesis 3, and as the " Promised Messiah " as the above post shows, then he be King in " God Kingdom " and there are no " Nationalities " in that so while YES to a King No to any National sovereignty.
king of the Jews, was making Jest of both of them!
08/16/17 02:45:18AM @eagle-averro:
08/16/17 02:27:46AM @calbab:
Kenneth Samuel Wuest holds that all three original New Testament verses' usages reflect a derisive element in the term Christian to refer to followers of Christ who did not acknowledge the emperor of Rome.[27
Jesus was a Christian. See comment 33150 above.
Characterizing his action as "haphazard" is historically inaccurate. —Squirrel!
Lincoln, the Emancipation Proclamation, and Freedom
The proclamation, contrary to the common assumption today, did not free every slave; they would be free only in states that were in rebellion against the authority of the federal government. Therefore, slaves in Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee, and parts of Virginia and Louisiana remained in slavery. Two months after the Emancipation Proclamation, slaves were at a premium price in Kentucky, as they likely were in the other loyal states. "There may be gone blockheads of the north," Indiana soldier Andrew McGarrah wrote home, "who think this is an abolition war." But, in Kentucky, slavery went on as it did before the proclamation. "Lincoln's proclamation is nullified," McGarrah wrote. "Slaves are worth more here now than they have been heretofore. They sell very high. The citizens here are not uneasy about their Blacks.”19Amendment XIII
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
United States Constitution
Blacks were offended that Lincoln failed to free all the slaves, and many, including Sojourner Truth, insisted that more should be done. "I come from another field--the country of a slave. They have got their liberty--so much good luck to have slavery partly destroyed; not entirely. I want it root and branch destroyed. Then we will all be free indeed.''
_________________________________________________________
Squirrel, "cold and calculated" are fair expressions for the mood and disposition of President Lincoln's decision and planning to emancipate the slaves in the colonies. However, as the segment above explais in practice, it was haphazard and many slaves may have paid big for getting caught in the 'gaps.'
haphazard - meaning lacking of any organization or obvious purpose or principle.
Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was specifically designed to inflict the most injury, strife, division, infighting and backstabbing within the ranks of his opponents states and governments. It was specifically designed so as to cause friends, allies, potential allies the least amount of difficulty or distress. To that degree it worked perfectly. It angered the South and caused splits and dviisions within their ranks, while satisfying the needs and wants of his allies in the North. It can not be characterized as haphazard, as it was targeted like a bullet from a sniper's rifle to seek the most deadly point of the kill. His goal was NOT to free all the slaves. Lincoln's goal was to win the war and keep the United States united.
I understand your point and I agree. It goes to something President Lincoln discusses in his letters re: Insurrection behind the lines of the rebels. I agree!
Jesus the Holy Priest?
Hebrews 5:1-10 New International Version (NIV)
5 Every high priest is selected from among the people and is appointed to represent the people in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. 2 He is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to weakness. 3 This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people. 4 And no one takes this honor on himself, but he receives it when called by God , just as Aaron was.
5 In the same way, Christ did not take on himself the glory of becoming a high priest . But God said to him,
“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father.” a]">[ a ]
6 And he says in another place,
“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.” b]">[ b ]
7 During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10 and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.
Before any serious conversation about Jesus, the participants must agree on what they take as reference material, and to what degree they have confidence in the details recounted in those references.
The Gospels were written decades after the crucifixion, by men with agendas. Any reading of the Gospels is necessarily marked by cherry-picking.
Personally, I think that the uncertainty due to the conditions of the Gospels' writing is too great to allow us to draw any serious conclusions. About all I would dare is:
- He was a carpenter,
- He knew the scriptures (which were not the same ones we have today),
- He was a talented speaker,
- He convinced a lot of people to follow His teachings,
- His message was simple: "Love one another".
Beyond that, I think we're going to be dealing with the authors' agendas, more than with Christ.
- He was a carpenter,
What difference does it make what he was before he became what he ended up being? What was David Koresh before he became the leader of The Branch Davidians? Does anyone care? What was Jim Jones before Guyana?
- He knew the scriptures (which were not the same ones we have today),
Not unlike any tele-evangelists of today. Pat Robertson, Ted Haggerd, Benny Hinn. They all know the scriptures. Anyone can know the scriptures, all it takes is study and a fairly good memory. Con-men can know the scriptures if it works for their con.
- He was a talented speaker,
So were a lot of people. John F. Kennedy, Adolf Hitler, any number of people have been recognized as great talented speakers. There is video evidence that those two were great speakers. To some there is not even any evidence that Jesus really existed, and if he did not exist then he could not have been a good speaker, let alone a talented speaker.
- He convinced a lot of people to follow His teachings,
Somebody convinced a lot of people to follow the teachings of Jesus. Jesus, if you believe he existed, did have his followers. Thousands perhaps when he spoke the Beatitudes and did the miracle of the loaves and fishes. But, most people give most of the credit for spreading the word and teachings of Jesus far and wide to the former Roman Tax Collector - Paul of Tarsus.
- His message was simple: "Love one another".
This is the KEY! This is the most important issue. This is the only issue that really counts. Does this make him a Jew? No. A Christian? No. A priest? No way! A King? No. - - - A teacher? Maybe, probably yes.
His message does make him a good man with a good message.
Bob Nelson, there is a old-saying that goes, "Question, everything." After doing so, then make a decision and continue on. Now then, we have the Bible that we have today. Somebody had to compile it. Some board, some committee, some council had to sit through all the sessions, sift through all the books, review all the pages, in order to conclude a final product. In the end, giving the "project" its seal of approval.
Then, the translators come in with a laborious task of making meaning of words, symbols, and "breaches" in the ancient writings due to aging, ruin, or wear and tear of documents.
To shorten this telling, we can trust that men did the very best they could over the early centuries to relate the best sourced information from and with the materials they encountered and handled, or we can call this call a "jinx" and not have any confidence in the finished product! This, by the way, is no more or less than what we do when authenticating written works in our own time.
At the end of the day, the Bible is sealed with all its interesting stories, blood-lettings, allegories, metaphors, similes, and the like. Now all modern-age men and women can do is read it for all it is worth . Or reject it wholesale. As to present-day Believers and any future believers, the question can be asked:
Romans 10: (NIV)
14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” g
Now all modern-age men and women can do is read it for all it is worth. Or reject it wholesale.
Or anything in between. It's not at all an "all or nothing" situation.
Or anything in between. It's not at all an "all or nothing" situation.
I've got to 'jab' at you a bit: Now who's talking about "cherry-picking"?
I didn’t criticize cherry-picking, in this context. I said, "Any reading of the Gospels is necessarily marked by cherry-picking."
Depending on the criteria the reader chooses to apply, the "credible text" varies enormously. Personally, I start from the opposite end. What interests me is Christ's message, "Love one another." The rest is secondary at best, then superfluous, and finally a distraction (which John rightly condemned).
So I cherry-pick the life of Jesus (just because it makes Him real for me) and His sermons, for His message. I don't care at all about the Pauline books, which (IMNAAHO) too often distract from the message. The battle between the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians was a big deal in the 1st Century, but not so much today...
"Question, everything." After doing so, then make a decision and continue on
Keeping that in mind, I have questioned the authenticity, accuracy the applicability of what the bible says in regards to today's world. My conclusion is that it is NOT authentic, NOT accurate and DOES NOT APPLY to today's world. The only people who claim that it is authentic, accurate and applicable to today are the very same people who cherry pick what they want to apply.
But you keep on with your cherry picking FOR YOUR LIFE. Don't expect me to follow your book of confusion and fiction.
Jeremy, the Old Testament law is for ancient Israelites or Orthodox Jews. In fact, some, many, in the modern state of Israel do not live the rigorous customs, traditions, or morality as ancient law proscribed. I am not now a member of the Jewish faith, neither have I ever been a proselyte to Judaism.
I am a New Testament Christian. Here is what I Timothy says about the law (of Moses):
1 Timothy 1
8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteou. . . .
As for costly gold and other splendid metals, having those things does not essentially demonstrate a person can not live modestly and moderately through performances of good works.
"Jeremy, the Old Testament law is for ancient Israelites or Orthodox Jews."
If I remember it correctly, didn't Jesus say he did NOT come to change the old laws? And if the OT is for Israelites then why are many of the same "laws" repeated in the NT and why Christians still trying to enforce it?
Also, why are you trying to use the book that has been used to justify genocide, murder and even slavery? I'd recommend that you look for a different reference.
'[D]idn't Jesus say he did NOT come to change the old laws?
Jeremy, you have asked for much. I am going to need you to do some of the heavy lifting. Can you go to Matthew 5 and pull out the scriptures you need for your points? I will move on to the rest of your comment. (-:
And if the OT is for Israelites then why are many of the same "laws" repeated in the NT and why Christians still trying to enforce it?
I wrote something long and interesting and lost it through too many windows open. So short answer time:
1. The Old Testament has been fulfilled for believers. The Old Testament and the New Testament has been stitched inside one cover by manufacturer for continuity-sake. Subsequently, some sects of believers attempt to teach and live out of both contracts with their people. Usually done through laziness of understanding that the Old Testament ceased being an active teacher for those who walk after grace and Spirit.
2. Next, there are some Christians who may think that they can actually live out the dictums and customs of the Old Testament as a service to God. It won't work for salvation, nevertheless.
Why are you trying to use the book that has been used to justify genocide, murder and even slavery?
The Old Testament is a record of the ancient history of the Jewish people. The complexities of nation-building, acquiring territory, defending territory, and establishing the appropriate dynamics of religious state and national systems' cross-pollination are all involved. How the Jewish people raised up a nation from small beginnings using methods and ideologies not approved by our more modern valuations is beyond the scope of this discussion.
Christians accept the history of the Old Testament for out of it comes Jesus, the Christ. However, Christians to not live under genocide customs, murder rules, or support slavery—except for those so imprisoned by laws. So the charge you put forward is hollow.
Jeremy,
It's simple: "Love one another."
Mark 12:28-31:
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
Well... the idea is simple. Actually following that very straight and very narrow path is pretty hard...
"It's simple: "Love one another." "
Looking at the history of Christianity, that is something that they just cannot do. How many millions have been slaughtered in the name of "Christ"?
And quoting a book that calls for the killing of somebody just because of a haircut, to me, is a bit asinine. OT / NT it all is part of the same story about a murderous deity. A deity that has already slaughtered it's creation because they disappointed him (according to the same book tells you to "love one another").
"Question, everything." After doing so, then make a decision and continue on
Keeping that in mind, I have questioned the authenticity, accuracy the applicability of what the bible says in regards to today's world. My conclusion is that it is NOT authentic, NOT accurate and DOES NOT APPLY to today's world. The only people who claim that it is authentic, accurate and applicable to today are the very same people who cherry pick what they want to apply.
But you keep on with your cherry picking FOR YOUR LIFE. Don't expect me to follow your book of confusion and fiction.
Could you do us a 'solid' of deleting your duplicate comment, please?
Jeremy, the Old Testament law is for ancient Israelites or Orthodox Jews. In fact, some, many, in the modern state of Israel do not live the rigorous customs, traditions, or morality as ancient law proscribed. I am not now a member of the Jewish faith, neither have I ever been a proselyte to Judaism.
I am a New Testament Christian. Here is what I Timothy says about the law (of Moses):
1 Timothy 1
8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous. . . .
As for costly gold and other splendid metals, having those things does not essentially demonstrate a person can not live modestly and moderately through performances of good works. You can find that mentioned by a comprehensive study of the New Testament.
Squirrel,
What part of
I think that the uncertainty due to the conditions of the Gospels' writing is too great to allow us to draw any serious conclusions. About all I would dare is:
was unclear for you? I did not say that any of the items cited were of "importance".
I agree that His message is all that really counts, although the other items help make Him real and human, for me at least.
What part of
I think that the uncertainty due to the conditions of the Gospels' writing is too great to allow us to draw any serious conclusions. About all I would dare is:
was unclear for you?
ALL OF IT. It is a very poorly written statement.
Did you look up "uncertainty" in the dictionary? If you don't understand a key word, the sentence is going to be tough! Otherwise, the sentence is pretty straightforward. There are no other words that you don't encounter every day.
So... seriously... What didn't you understand?
Seriously, your entire comment was poorly written. Please don't blame your lack of ability as a writer on anyone elses's inability to understand poorly wriiten comments. When you write nonsense you have to expect that no one but you will be able to understand your nonsense. Now let that be the end of it. Thank you!
Have a nice life, Squirrel. I doubt we'll chat much. I come to NT for conversation, not word games. 'Bye.
I doubt we'll chat much.
Gawd I hope we don't chat at all in the future. Your comments make little or no sense.
Documentary on Militant Atheism in the Soviet Union
This documentary video shows the destruction of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, which occurred in Moscow, Soviet Union on 5 December 1931, under the militant atheism of the USSR (Russian: Воинствующий атеизм в СССР).
According to Harold J. Berman, a Harvard specialist in Soviet law, militant atheism was the official religion of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party was analagous to an established church. The goal of the Soviet Union was the liquidation of religion and the means to achieve this goal included the destruction of churches, mosques, synagogues, mandirs, madrasahs, religious monuments, as well the mass deportation to Siberia of believers of different religions. Under the Soviet doctrine of separation of church and state, detailed in the Constitution of the Soviet Union, churches in the Soviet Union were forbidden to give to the poor or carry on educational activities. They could not publish literature since all publishing was done by state agencies, although after World War II the Russian Orthodox Church was given the right to publish church calendars, a very limited number of Bibles, and a monthly journal in a limited number of copies. Churches were forbidden to hold any special meetings for children, youth or women, or any general meetings for religious study or recreation, or to open libraries or keep any books other than those necessary for the performance of worship services. Furthermore, under militant atheist policies, Church property was expropriated.
Moreover, not only was religion banned from the school and university system, but pupils were to be indoctrinated with atheism and antireligious teachings. For example, schoolchildren were asked to convert family members to atheism and memorize antireligious rhymes, songs, and catechisms, while university students who declined to propagate atheism lost their scholarships and were expelled from universities. Severe criminal penalties were imposed for violation of these rules. By the 1960s, with the fourth Soviet anti-religious campaign underway, half of the amount of Russian Orthodox churches were closed, along with five out of the eight seminaries. In addition, several other Christian denominations were brought to extinction, including the Baptist Church, Methodist Church, Evangelical Christian Church, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Before the Russian Revolution, there were more than fifty thousand Russian Orthodox clergymen, by 1939, there were no more than three to four hundred left. In the year 1922 alone, under the militant atheistic system, 2691 secular priests, 1962 monks and 3447 nuns were martyred for their faith. According to Rudolph Joseph Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, 61,000,000 people were killed under the Communism of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Due to the militant atheistic campaigns against Judaism, the religion was inaccessible to its followers; most Soviet Jews focused on a national identity, which fueled a mass dissident movement. Marxist-Leninist militant atheism resulted in the administrative elimination of the clergy, the housing of atheist museums where churches had once stood, the sending of many religious people to prisons and concentration camps, a continuous stream of propaganda, and the imposing of atheism through education (and forced re-education through torture at various prisons). Specifically, by 1941, 40,000 Christian churches and 25,000 Muslim mosques had been closed down and converted into schools, cinemas, clubs, warehouses and grain stores, or Museums of Scientific Atheism.
>>> <<<
IMHO, the problem in "militant atheism" is not in "atheism" but in "militant".
Militant religion, of a hundred different stripes, has also been murderous.
I agree with you, again. Evil men and women doing evil things to one another. They can and do so under every banner, category, title, or description known to man!
Squirrel! Did I find and answer all your questions? I sure tried to! (-:
Squirrel! Did I find and answer all your questions? I sure tried to! (-:
For the most part yes. Thank you! :-)
But there is this comment I posed to @JohnRussell you may be interested in: 33150
And I don't quite follow your response to my Counterpoint: The nuclear bomb... but that is moot now: 33150 (Not sure how the Corinthians passage applies.)
I did pose a question re: The Revolutionary War, that was intercepted by someone else: 33150
Those may be interesting questions, but no longer need a reply.
However, I did add a new comment regarding "Is Jesus a Christian?" that I would be interested to read your feedback on, if possible : 33150 (I hope these links work!)
Good day Squirrel! I see it and liked several. Will be back shortly!
Good day Squirrel! I see it and liked several. Will be back shortly!
08/16/17 07:25:05AM @buzz-of-the-orient:
I said nothing about or even thought about "Anti-Christ". Look at it as a theory that is contrary to the theory expounded by the bible. I watched a movie, I enjoyed watching it, and suggest you watch it too.
I made my point, and I'm through discussing it, especially discussing tangetial matters such as Anti-Christ.
OK Thank you::
I have seen it a number of times, and as I said it is a fiction mingled with some " Known Names " as any good fiction will do just to give it some " Gravitas "
Many thanks for you conversation, take care
@Calbab, please click on this link 33150