Jesus the Man
I am going to use the song "Fly from Heaven" by Toad the Wet Sprocket as a springboard for this conversation. Btw, I personally think that this is a great song worthy of a listen to if you have never heard it.
Lyrics
Paul is making me nervous
Paul is making me scared
Walk into this room and swaggers
Like he's God's own messenger
Changed the name of my brother
Changed the things that he said
Says he speaks to him
But he never even knew the man
But I'd give my life for him
Like water through my hands
You'd give him any ending
But if he's all you say
Would he fly from heaven
To this world again
To this world again
Take whatever you're needing
Take whatever you can
We are broken from within
Run to another land
Like water through my hands
Or is it just beginning
But if he's all you say
Would he fly from heaven
To this world again
To this world again
They took my brother
They ripped him from me
To twist his words as they did his body
Denied his family
Denied his beauty
To lie him down at the feet
Of those he couldn't save
Couldn't save, couldn't save
Will it be the end
Or is he still ascending
But if he's all you say
Would he fly from heaven
To this world again
To this world again
For the record, this song was written by a reform Jew, who studied Chriatiny's roots.
The song is sung from the perspective of James, the brother of Jesus, who is upset by the perversion of his brother’s message by the Apostle Paul. Paul preached that faith alone would lead to salvation, while James believed that good deeds were necessary (and his brother taught as much). This song is about that struggle.
The writer said this about the song:
PHILLIPS: I’ve always been curious in that way, always had a spiritual bent, always had issues with religion specifically, but been very curious about it. I grew up in reformed Judaism, but my dad was taking me to meditation courses. So I had this Eastern thing and my knowledge of Christianity was mostly reading Apocrypha, I was really curious about early Christianity histories. So I was reading that and [Elaine] Pagels’ books, which is really kind of where “Fly From Heaven” comes from. This idea of the change of Christianity from this earlier very much more Jewish sect into what became the Catholic church, and that split from those who probably knew Jesus and were in that early time and how Christianity switched. So I was fascinated with that from mostly a historical perspective. Without being a Christian, just to me the story of Jesus is hey what happens if you call for righteousness and equality and for people to be non-judgmental, it’s like “oh, sometimes you get tortured to death.” And that seemed like a really probable story to me. [ Laughs ] And that resonated with me, this bit of “hey, doing the right thing doesn’t give you a happy ending necessarily. And I can live with that.”
https://www.stereogum.com/2008163/toad-the-wet-sprocket-interview-glen-phillips/interviews/tracking-down/
I, like the writer of the song, was raised as a Jewish and Indian. I too took to studying about religion in college. The one thing that truly interested me about Jesus, was that from most accounts (Roman and the Dead Sea Scrolls), is that he was a real man, and he had a real family. I also know that some will argue that Jesus was an amalgamation of people who claimed to be the Messiah at the time.
There is also no denying that what was being taught to the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, was not what Paul was teaching to the Greeks. There is more than hints about this in the letters written between James and Paul at that time. This led me to wonder what Paul would have said if he had a face-to-face with Paul. After all, Jesus was James' brother. Paul (Saul) was a convert on a mission, literally. Would the change in both religious practices and how salvation could be achieved be enough to really upset those closest to Jesus?
There are many levels to discuss this at. For me, it is about Jesus and his family, but obviously, there are many other aspects to this, that the discussion can be discussed. Feel free to express yourself.
Tags
Who is online
331 visitors
Any bad behavior will be deleted immediately. Only civil discussion is allowed.
oh man... oh well, at least there won't be as much proselytizing...
Sorry, Dev. And yes, my goal is not trying to get anyone into a faith, but rather thing about things in a different way.
Its quite understandable that you have a non-Christian perspective.
However , for a couple thousand years now the main point of emphasis of the life of Jesus, from the perspective of those who believe in Him, is that he is a manifestation of the one God, the Son of God.
Jesus as just a man , or as someone's earthly brother , is a fine conversation piece , but sort of ignores what his millions of followers believe.
Think about this John. One's family shapes the person you become and I am sure, he was very much a man. His moments in the Garden of Gethsemane is a very human one. It does not take away from the faith. In fact, I would argue that it only makes his message a lot more powerful.
As far as I understand these things, Jesus was a Jewish rabbi who objected to some of the old teachings and hypocrisy of the religious elders. He was bringing forth a new way. Whether that way was intended to be a supplanting, from Jesus point of view, of the Jewish faith , is not clear, to me anyway.
Then, I dont read the Bible on a regular basis.
Jesus life was lived in a certain way, and as a Jew. I'm sure his family was very important to him. As the religion of Christianity developed though, Jesus as a man gave way to Jesus , the second entity in the Holy Trinity.
Jesus was born a Jew and died a Jew. The Romans made sure he remembered this by placing a plaque above his that mocked him as "The king of the Jews".
Jesus placed more emphasis, on treating each other well. This is also a Jewish concept. What he had no value for was the Pharisees, and given the time and place, one could argue he was right.
So my question to you is, do you think he would have approved of how the faith evolved?
I have no idea. Although Christians generally believe that the course of the Christian faith is divinely inspired.
Well, that is a given. But what I am asking goes beyond that. What are your feelings on this?
I think all completely honest people have some ambivalence about their religious beliefs. If we could know the answers they wouldnt be eternal questions.
At different times and places and cultural settings throughout history humans have told "stories" that represent their ongoing or developing interest in explaining existence. In the end, I believe, all the stories lead to the same place.
That is what the Bahai believe.
The plaque wasn't placed by the Romans. It was placed by a Roman. Pilate to be exact and we can't actually discern what his purpose for doing it was. He may have been putting his thumb in the eye of the Jewish religious leaders for forcing him to crucify a man he didn't think deserved it. He may have put it up because of that and also that he respected Jesus for being willing to die for what he believed. It could have been a number of things. We don't know because there's no record that tell us.
A lot of people today think of Jesus in a sort of, or outright social justice way and think his message was all about that. It wasn't. Jesus' message was always "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near." Of course, Jesus did want us to treat each other but that was simply a subset of the more important issue he came to deal with.
If I had to give a single sentence reason as to what mostly lead to his death, it would be not being the Messiah the Jews were expecting. They were expecting a wealthy, powerful and dominating man who would expel the Romans and make Israel the greatest country on earth. Instead, what they got was a poor, itinerant preacher of no import telling them to turn away from how the world does things and, instead, focus on relationship with God. They certainly didn't see God's Son coming to die on a Roman cross for their sins as fulfilling their idea of the Messiah.
Hard to say without knowing what you think it evolved from or what you think early Christianity was like. That said, I don't think there's a single answer to the question. In some ways, yes, in others, no. I don't think he would be happy with how the RCC turned out. I think he would be mostly pleased with Protestantism.
Well, it depends on which gospel you are talking about. From Matthew:
This passage would imply that not only Pilate was involved but also the other Romans, and they seemed rather into it. But this aside, Jesus did die a Jew.
I'm not so sure about the repenting part. I think that depends on the denomination of Christian you are.
Where did you get that idea from? This is what most Jews believe:
Hence why it was so easy to get Jews to follow Jesus.
Well, I think that would be more of a personal view. I don't know what branch of Protestantism you are from to go any further.
You cut out a rather lot in order to post what you did. If you hadn't, we'd see Pilate didn't want to execute Jesus. He wanted to let him go but his hand was forced by the Jewish leadership. And while the garrison soldiers did beat and mock Jesus, there's no indication it was at the command of Pilate. More likely, it was just typical behavior soldiers had toward anyone from a people who held such hostility toward Rome. Especially since Pilate "washed his hands" over the whole thing, not wanting to be involved anymore with what he seemed to consider a farce.
So, again, it wasn't Romans who had the plaque posted. It was solely on Pilate's orders and said specifically what he wanted it to say. As I understand it, it was common to post the crime for which the person was executed. In Jesus' case, it would have made more sense to post something that said something more like "Jesus. Claimed to be the king of the Jews" but that isn't what it said. It said he was king of the Jews, which, ironically, he was. Since there isn't a specific record that says why he used the wording he did we can't really know why he wrote what he wrote.
Well, yes. Is anyone disputing that?
There are other verses as well.
History. Around the time of Jesus there had been many claiming to be the Messiah and all of them led revolts. All of them proceeded in typical human fashion and expectations.
Do you mean this is what most Jews believe today or do you mean the Jews of Jesus' time? Since they didn't start compiling the Talmud until the 2nd or 3rd century I don't see how it could be used to say it was what most Jews believed at that time.
I don't think it was easy, exactly. And I don't think the Talmud factored into it at all. After all, almost immediately, the Jews began a persecution that caused a lot of the Jewish Christians to flee to other parts of the world. It's part of what caused Christianity to spread so fast.
Fair enough, although I wasn't trying to be specific. However, if one looks into the history of the RCC and its current practice and compares it to what the Bible actually says, it seems a little difficult to put it down to personal opinion. It's what caused the Protestant movement in the first place. It sort of grew out of a kind of war within the RCC since its beginning and shows why the Church should not be involved with the state.
When Christianity became the Defacto religion of the empire it unintentionally did something quite bad. Until that point, first sons got the lions share of their father's power as their inheritance. Second, third, and so on, sons had to either join the military and try for power that way or not much else was available to them. The church provided a new way to power and that's exactly what often happened. Sons of the rich and powerful became priests who had no actual faith or calling but only saw it as a path to power. We see the results of this throughout RCC history.
But there were actual believers in the RCC as well, quietly fighting a war with those only seeking power. Eventually it led to Protestants splitting off. Of course, Protestants have their share of power seekers, such as Kenneth Copeland and his like, but they don't have the support structure that the RCC has. They literally have to do what they do from the ground up.
Very well put. I hope everyone sees that. This happened in a Jewish land under Roman control. The ultimate verdict was that of the Jews. Pilate tried to save him by giving the people a choice of freeing a robber named Barabbas or the man charged with sedition. It was customary to pardon a prisoner before the Jewish feast of Passover. The crowd chose to let Barabbas go free. BTW all 4 writers of the Bible agree on this point.
This passage would imply that not only Pilate was involved but also the other Romans, and they seemed rather into it.
To me it implies pagan sarcasm.
Hence why it was so easy to get Jews to follow Jesus.
Really? I'd say many of them didn't trust him.
That's why they been so cruelly persecuted in Iran for so many years..
And of course there are other spiritual paths, and other spiritual teachers who have said similar things.
One of my own personnal gurus who I deeply revere is HH Sri Swami Satchadananda. He is often called "The Ecumennical Guru"-- here's is a saying he is known for: "Truth is one, paths are many:
Above Photo: A sand mandala of the Integral Yoga Yantra .
Truth Is One, Paths Are Many
Excerpted from To Know Your Self, by Sri Swami Satchidananda
Any religion that quarrels with another religion is not truly a religion. Religion means all-embracing, no quarrels. If ever a person calls him or herself religious and denies the other’s way or religion, know for sure that person doesn’t yet understand his or her own religion.
A special note to all of our "scientific" friends on NT: Nothing in the above post is meant as being proven "scientifically". Because-- it can't be.
Heck-- that's one reason all of this stuff appeals to me so much!
Then you seem to forget that the first followers were Jews, not Romans. I am sure there were those who didn't trust him, but obviously, there was an appeal to others.
Thanks for sharing that and yes, they are very cruelly persecuted in Iran.
I was born and raised as an Indian and follow the way of the Midewiwin. Unlike both Judish and Christianity, we do not have a bible or Torah. We do not have temples and churches, nor paintings or statues of Christ/God/Saints since we find it presumptuous to think that we would know what a god looks like its race or gender. To us it is Gitchi Manitou which some (non-Indians) translate to ''Great Spirit'' but the ancient meaning is ''The great mystery'' it has no race/color/gender. There are no rules as to what days one worships or how one worships, that it left to each individual. Following the teaching of the Midewiwin means to walk in balance where the spirit and the physical body remain in balance also known as walking the ''red road''.
It is strange to those that follow the way of the Midewiwin to see the great buildings in honor of their God, or trapping of wealth by the various denominations or the wearing of the various costumes worn by the leaders of the different organizations.
To me, that seems to violate what God stands for as professed by the followers of those religions.
Well as a JIP, I hear ya on this. The interesting thing is that there is no conflict between Judaism and being Indian and believing in the great Spirit. Jews don't need buildings to worship in, since they believe that god (the great spirit) is everywhere and in everything. My grandmother (who was from Odesa, Ukraine) found a lot in common with her Indian mother in law and they loved each other very much.
I understand the similarities between Indian beliefs and some Jewish beliefs yet the Jewish faith builds temples, in fact, one was just finished across the street from our community. My question would be, why, what is the need for it?
There is no need for it. It is just a place to congregate. If you got 10 people, you can have a service.
Ahhh, there is the difference, we do not believe that one needs to congregate and have a service. To us the service is what we want it to be since there are no ''service rules'' to abide by for us.
I would argue that there are times when Indians gather for specific occasions, like death ceremonies and Pow wows. Even vision quests require an elder or a medicine man. The gathering of 10 people is for a specific kind of ceremony. It is not necessary for other prayers and meditation.
My only point is that there is more in common with these two belief systems than with most.
I would argue that a Pow Wow isn't a religious ceremony and death ceremonies are not a gathering to celebrate a specific time/thing but to send the deceased on the ''path of souls''.
Only the preparation for the Vision Quest requires a medicine man or mide, the journey itself must be taken alone, no one is ever allowed to accompany one on a vision quest.
That is true.
In Christianity, there is a need to congregate, although the structure in which it occurs isn't important. In fact, I don't think we congregate enough. The purpose of congregating is to mutually support each other in our walk with God. Christianity is, at its heart, about relationship. With God and each other. It's about community.
We do not see the need to physically support each other in our belief, it isn't forbidden but it is not required either.
For the serious Christian, we very much see the need. We believe God calls us out of the world, meaning away from how us humans think and what we do apart from God. Instead, we are called to live in His kingdom, so to speak, meaning we act and react to the world we find ourselves in in accordance with God's views and commands. Or, better to say we try to. But since our natural state is the same as those who don't follow God, the world can easily pull us back into its way of thinking. That is the point of congregating, of trying to live in community with each other. To help each other to not fall back into the world's way of thinking and doing things.
Yes, I know that you do. It is my opinion that the differences between Christianity and Midewiwin are profound in many ways. We see things totally different and the last thing that we would ever do is to try to convert someone to the Midewiwin way of life. That is something that most Christian sects do, sending out missionaries and the attempted conversion of non-believers in the Christin way.
As I stated in an earlier comment the need for Churches, statues, paintings of a God are simply not something that we subscribe to nor do we ever want to. We understand that it is the great mystery and don't attempt to pretend that we know the mysteries that surround it.
Yes, I'm sure there are profound differences. As far as proselytizing, what would you do if you knew the answer to all life's problems and knew how to access the most wonderful Person imaginable? Would you keep it to yourself? If Christianity is correct, how much would you thank me for not telling you anything about it when you stand before God and He asks you why you rejected Jesus? On top of that, if your God told you to go and make disciples, would you tell Him, 'no'?
In any case, not all, or even very many, Christians actually go out door to door trying to convert people. It's mostly Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses that do that, in my experience, and those aren't really Christian sects, even though they will tell you they are. For most of us, proselytizing consists mostly waiting for an opportunity. A co worker or friend usually brings it up first and a conversation begins. It's not something we try to force people to have a conversation on. Of course, things might be different in other areas of the county. A lot of you speak of experiences I've never witnessed in my life and seems to be so common that I have to wonder why it never happens where I am.
Understood. To be clear, to us, Church is not a building. It's the believers themselves. And, for the church I attend, we don't do statues and whatnot. I don't think we even have a cross anywhere, but I'll have to look next time.
It isn't as if we feel we totally understand God, either. The difference is that we believe God, on His own initiative, has revealed Himself to us through nature, the word (Bible) and His Son. If it weren't for that, we'd know nothing of God except that there must be one, maybe. Even so, what we do understand is limited by our nature. That is, we know God is a God of love, but the depth of that love is beyond understanding, for instance.
To sum it up, it seems to me that the biggest difference between your faith and mine is that in mine we believe in a theistic God that is intensely interested in us and has taken steps to make sure we know it, if we seek Him. Not knowing much about Midewiwin, whatever the Great Spirit is seems to be more a deistic affair, but that may just be my impression.
That is assuming that Christianity is correct, of course, there is no proof of that. On a more realistic level why does, why does one Christian sect think they are right when the next one states it is right. Based on the real experiences of Native people and Christianity there is nothing that I would want any part of.
Going door to door isn't the only way Christians proselytize, and the part of your comment that you do not consider Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses Christian is a problem within the Christian society, you can't agree among yourselves to what is Christian, perhaps they don't consider you to be Christian.
Perhaps it's because you never looked.
Perhaps your God is a God of love, but many of the followers of Christianity seem to have forgotten that over the centuries. With indigenous people in the Americas it would date back to the ''Doctrine of Discovery'' and The Papal Bull “Inter Caetera,” over the centuries parts of it have become embedded in US law.
The differences are far more than being a theistic God and as you put it a ''deistic affair. I never thought of our beliefs as an affair.
Aha-- we have something in common. I am also part Russian-- because one of my grandmother's was also born in Russia! Odessa (Russia)
That isn't the correct way to look at the differences. It isn't that one sect thinks they are right over others. Rather, what they focus on concerning faith is what is different. People are always saying there's major differences, but there really isn't. That is, they all pretty much agree about everything, but differ on how to express it, leaving out the RCC, Mormons and JW's, of course.
It isn't really a matter of agreeing what is Christian. Imagine if I said that Christianity is actually true Midewiwin and what you practice as Midewiwin is just a primitive, unenlightened form of it. And then people outside either faith just put us both down as simply not agreeing what is Midewiwin. It's rather like that. Mormonism is so fundamentally different from Christianity in nearly every last aspect that no one who actually looks at the issue can conclude they are the same religion. JW is not as obvious but it is also fundamentally different. It would be as if you tried shoe horning Jesus into Midewiwin and then claimed you were a Christian sect. That isn't a matter of opinion. It's simply a matter of what these different religions are based on and what, ultimately, they head toward. It also isn't a matter of faith. Anyone can simply look at the differences and arrive at the same conclusion.
My faith is the most important part of my life. How could I not look?
Different discussion.
I'd be interested in hearing what those differences are.
''That isn't the correct way to look at the differences!!'' I don't see you and the arbitrator of what is the right or wrong way to look at anything.
Why would you leave out the RCC? It is the largest Christian sect in the world, isn't it?
My experience is that there is a rivalry between the different sects in Christianity. I have an acquaintance that is one protestant sect who told me he would never enter a Catholic Church. That in my experience isn't that unusual.
I don't know but it is my personal experience that many Christians willfully ignore the obvious especially when it comes to their past and present activities that, IMO would not be something that your God would condone.
No, it isn't. It's a very integral part of any discussion between Christians and indigenous people.
The most obvious would be that I don't believe in your God not any of the trapping surrounding Christianity.
I'll have to leave this for later. I will be working five 12 hour graveyards, beginning tonight and that doesn't leave me any time to respond until my weekend. Sorry.
Hey we may be related!
Fundamentalists tend to do that. Only main line Protestants accept Catholics as true Christians. Those other sects have found verses in the Bible to reject Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah Witnesses
I respect all religions, and non religions for that matter. If there is a God there is one God that reigns over all of creation. Human religions are cultural expressions of the human desire to connect to the timeless and eternal.
I am not bothered by statues or icons though, and the way I was taught Catholocism we never worshipped the icons or statues, but saw them as only a visual represenation of the concepts of the faith.
I think that the difference between Christianity and Midewiwin is that we do not feel it necessary to have all the trapping that the RCC or other sects have or the concept of sin or original sin. One thing that we do not do is try to convert others to our belief, that is something that we would never do, nor do we understand that you have many bibles with different interpretations written by man long after Christ died.
I've had some Christians say to me that we ''worship'' nature. This is nonsense we do not worship nature we have learned the interconnectedness of all living things. That is our belief.
I've had some Christians say to me that we ''worship'' nature. This is nonsense we do not worship nature we have learned the interconnectedness of all living things.
It does seem silly to worship nature. Nature doesn’t care. Nature wouldn’t care if a meteor cratered the earth, blocked out the sun for a millennia, and killed every living thing on the surface of the planet. It would just patiently wait for the smoke to clear and regroup without a care.
Or there could be many.
Awesome. It is a shame that most religions do not admit ' we do not know ' but rather ( go heavy in the opposite direction and ) invent all sorts of amazing, impressive attributes about their god. Interesting also how this is similar to Asian beliefs/philosophy and how that makes sense given the findings expressed in about original Americans arriving from Northern Siberia and Eastern Asia as far back as 30,000 years ago.
Yes, it is similar and of course, the Bering Strait theory is an existing theory that has much support which is the connection between Siberia and NA's.
Well is there are strong similarities between American Indians' beliefs and those of Asians there are two possible explanations:
1. Long ago Asians crossed over into North America and of course brought their beliefs with them.
However, there's also another possible explanation:
2. Those similar belief systems actually developed simultaneously on their own in both places-- without the two groups necessarily having any contact.
(I have no idea which of these two possibilities explains the phenomenon-- or even if there is some other explanation).
And on a perhaps somewhat more mystical level, there is Rupert Sheldrake's notion of morphic resonance/morphgenic fields.
(This has not been proven by science-- so of course its peaked my interest!
)
There is strong archeological, linguistic and genetic evidence that original Americans came from Siberia/Asia. Thus I am inclined to think the religious philosophy was also influenced by the origins.
”…on a perhaps somewhat more mystical level…”
Well said.
And mysticism aside, perhaps multiple cultures may have come to a similar and more meaningful conclusion…that we all, regardless of our self-aggrandizing importance, are but a small cog in a much larger wheel.
In Judaism, Orthodox Judaism at least, if not the other branches, graven images, any image depicting the deity is forbidden, and images depicting humans or spiritual representations of them are not found in synagogues or temples.
Would it be correct, Kavika, that the Indian alternative to a constructed edifice devoted to prayer would be nature itself?
Yes, that would be correct Buzz.
A scene, never to be forgotten, from the end of the movie Windtalkers:
This would be the cathedral of some of the Plains tribes.
Known to the whites as ''Devils Tower'' it is not the true name of it. It is known to the Lakota as ''Bear Lodge or Mystic Owl'' Perhaps the whites think that we were all devils.
Man cannot compete with nature when it comes to awe-inspiring beauty.
It is America's first National Monument located in the Badlands of Wyoming.
Funny how the words of Paul illustrate quite an imagination yet, because they are part of the Bible, many people accept his words as divine truth.
This is a very interesting point.
From the bible:
If it were a hallucination, it must have been a shared one, because those with him at the time also heard the voice and saw the light.
To the faithful, this might be proof.
But modern psychology could have called this mass hysteria.
I am not trying to mock, but rather show two different viewpoints. Just because others saw what Paul saw, doesn't mean that James' views were not as valuable.
According to who?
or a helicopter with search lights.../s
How does a hallucination manifest as blindness in someone? When we look 'into' the account itself we 'learn' there is a light with implied intensity enough to 'fell to the ground' and the gravity of the event called for an act of 'fasting.'
Don't worry, I don't think you are trying to mock. I took your word to "Feel free to express yourself." I am not arguing against your viewpoint. I'm explaining my reaction to it from my perspective. I assume that's all you are doing.
Also, I wouldn't consider any writer of the NT as either more or less valuable than any other. I certainly value what James wrote and I don't see it as contending with what Paul wrote. Do you think there's contention there?
Why, the guy who had the vision of course, considering is the only record of this account that anyone is aware of. That whole "the bible proves the bible" thing, never mind how logically flawed that line of thinking is.
Writes the guy who exactly understood my point.
Although the languaging of the time was different, actual Muggles appeared on earth long before the appearance of the first Harry Potter movie.
I'm sure there are those who might consider it on the level of proof, but I think most do not. They consider it evidence that they believe to be true.
Yes I do. I think that Paul's view that faith alone would lead to salvation is very different from what Jesus and James taught which is that works mattered as much. Also, there were differences in how much Judaism should stay and what should go. Paul pretty much wanted most of it to go, while James did not.
Faith alone saves and I don't think either Jesus or James would disagree with this. James' argument was works was evidence of a genuine saving faith, not the basis of it. Put another way, genuine saving faith produces works, not works produces saving faith. We see this in James 2:17:
Note that "action" is the result of faith, not the cause of it. It is evidence that we have faith that saves but not the basis for that salvation.
Also, I'm not sure to what you are referring to here. Could you explain more about what those differences would be?
The RCC may have been founded on Paul's letters and teaching but part of their dogma is that faith is worthless without works. Protestants came along and threw out the "works" and said that man only needs faith.
I never paid any attention to Paul's teachings. He was an usurper. His words are not the words of the Savior
This is a mischaracterization of what is the actual truth. Protestants do not throw out works. We simply don't recognize it as part of what saves us. Doing good works is part of why, or for what we were saved for, not how we are saved. Jesus, according to his own words and the rest of the Bible, claims to be the Son of God. Does it not strike you as strange that even the sacrifice of God himself can't save us, according to those who say salvation is also based on works? I mean, the most powerful entity imaginable, or even unimaginable, doesn't have the power to save us by his own sacrifice on our behalf?
I'm not likely to change your mind on that but, to me, it's clear the RCC is the usurper. If ever you want to have a discussion about Paul I think it would be interesting.
Dear TG, there is a reason why the "many-ied" books are in the bible under distinct names. That is, the NT is not just Paul's letters. It incorporates varied points of views which have to be melded ("reconciled") into the life of a believer. Thus, James 'book' is every bit as important to the understanding of the believer as Paul's letters. Neither writer is discounted.
Yes, there are some believers who have as an article of belief: faith alone saves. Because 'parts' of the bible discuss it so in solidarity. Then, equally, there are books that discuss works as an outcome or 'out-working' of faith (not to be neglected). That is how we reconcile (make friendly) difficult passages written so long ago that no one is around to change the text set as in stone.
By the way, did you know that faith (belief) was what Abraham offered God ahead of any work of circumcision?
And there are some religions-- or perhaps more accurately some mystic sects in some religions-- that believe its all a hallucination.
For example, many ancient Hindu sects believe the Universe we believe we are seeing is all Maya-- an illusion.
Reminds me of some of the discussions in some modern branches of physics-- debates over whether the world is all a series of waves-- or is it actual physical particles.
And the notion that non-physical matter-- i.e. waves-- can be converted into physical matter.
How?
One theory is that waves convert into particles simply by observing them-- although I'm a bit uncertain as to exactly how this operates.
(pun intended ).
In what way? Paul basically founded the whole religion that became the RCC.
I really can't stand the RCC hate here at NT
I'm sorry Trout but maybe it's the history of corruption, mass murder (crusades) and wide-spread pedophilia, ...to this day.
On a personal note it was burned into my 6 year old psyche that I was born with sin on my soul.
I quit the catholic church when I was seventeen (drivers' license) and never looked back.
Believe me, they have earned their share of scorn. It's the rank and file that seem to take it on the nose. Especially when some state that their beliefs are all wrong
Badfish once posted an article claiming that the Pope was murdering babies and eating them. It wasnt identified as satire because it wasnt satire. He took it from a nutcase conspiracy website.
NT has always been an anti-Catholic site. I know my friend Perrie doesnt want to hear that but it is true.
The Catholic Church is no more corrupt than other religions.
The Crusades took place before there were other Christian sects, so all the responsibility for the Crusades good or bad goes to the Catholic Church. If they had happened 4 or 5 hundred years later maybe we would include Protestants in that criticism.
Pedophilia occurs everywhere that adult males have unsupervised access to children. The reason that is the case is because a certain percentage of people, mainly men, have a sexual attraction to children. It happens in church, in scouting groups, in sports clubs, in public schools, choirs, youth groups, etc. and of course in the home and among family members.
Particularly in a group of males that have taken a vow of celibacy.
Though I am not a priest (or even one who has considered being such), I am celibate for several decades now and though I think about sex everyday in some form or manner—my attraction and interest remains to my sexual identity: Homosexual legal age males. Consequently, I propose that celibate males were they to have sex (routinely) it would be in accordance with their 'nature' - not simply convenience. (Of course, there will be an exception percentage to every rule.)
What am I saying then? That pedophile celibates may be the bulk of what is plaguing the Catholic Church as it tries to make a home for these 'wayward' males seeking to belong somewhere.
I assume there is a difference between divine truth and actual truth. For me, the bible is allegorical at best.
Seems to me, divine truth ≡ actual truth.
Yup.
I concur with both of you.
As for divine truth ≡ actual truth, I would say that is only true for the faithful. I am sure that there is truth in the bible, but the stories may or may not be actual.
Remember Perrie, ''God is Red'' Vine Deloria 1972.
Seems to me, if there is divine truth then that is, by definition, actual truth. Divine truth would be perfect truth.
If more people read that book, they would take better care of the earth.
I guess if you believe in divine truth, that would be perfect truth. As for the bible, the OT has a lot in the way of parables while the NT is a bit more about the "word of god".
Even if one is not convinced that a divine truth exists, one can accept its definition. If something is divine truth that means that it is true according to the creator. Is there a higher authority for deeming something to be true?
For sure.
Again for sure.
Not that I am aware of. I think that individuals make that decision.
I assume there is a difference between divine truth and actual truth. For me, the bible is allegorical at best.
Actually, IMO, that's one of the best defenses of The Bible-- and in fact any holy book where there are happening that are contradicted by "scientific' proof.
Taken literally, is not believe that someone could, for example, turn water into wine. Of call on a Higher Poer to part the red Sea-- and it happened.
easy to use "logic" and taking the Bible literally to prove its all a hoax.
But if you believe The Bible is allegorical-- talks in terms of symbols-- its makes more sense.
(Personally I do believe in telekinesis-- i.e. that "mind over matter" is possible-- but then I always was a bit of a rebellious trouble-,maker, lol)
Perhaps...one's own experience?
One can think something true but that does not make it so.
One can also prove something to be true-- but that does not make it so.
Having read through this article, to be honest, I am becoming frustrated that it is pulling itself apart (already). Too many perspectives about this One faith and what its 'constitution' is. This may not work, though I am 'shocked' that it is being offered up by dear Perrie!!! I am piqued, nevertheless. (Smile.)
ONE THING GOING IN. There was a question above I will use to 'open' my portion of sharing:
In my opinion, in a word: "No!"
The Church has not 'perfected' itself. Indeed, it has split and continues to split with each new addition and new era of faith and as time moves forward. Neither do Christians consider each other 'brethren' or 'friends' which Jesus dared to call his disciples as he went so far as to stoop down and wash their individual feet.
Jesus would not consider this church of 'today' (that we do to each other whether insultingly even) as 'evolution.' Albeit, Jesus can use anyone or any 'access point' to the advantage of building up and strengthening ("stumping") at some later period.
How so?
Actually, we have talked about both Judaism and Indian beliefs too. The point though was not what Christianity's 'constitution' should be, but rather Jesus the man. The other detours are always the way my articles go. I didn't mean it to be shocking coming from me.
Now on to your answer. I would have to agree with you, and I think that John 17:20-23 is a good example of why.
Agreed, and I think that is hardly what he would have wanted. Matthew 16:18
Notice he says church, not churches... one house for one people.
Acknowledged.
I am now thinking I would have been more accurate to say, 'reading through the comments 
I get a sense the article is beginning to pull itself apart.' My apologies for any confusion.
Moving on, if I may: Jesus understood his church would be build in individualists (out of many-One) and traversing many peoples (systems and governments). It is my understanding our brethren in Judaism formed a religious totality under G-d. I humbly ask your opinion.
And this details point to Peter being the Church (founder), not Paul—yes?
From what I understand, Jesus wanted his word spread among the people. That is different than Judaism, which while it is about following god's laws, is also about ethics. It does not require that it be spread but welcomes those who are interested.
Gentiles: non-Jewish people (you mean)? It is easy to see why a Jewish Rabbi with a message for "the nations" would need a new and separate 'delivery system,' or he would be mistook as messaging to Jews alone.
Consider this: Jesus gave this figure of speech:
The meaning of which is these will be represented as two.
That isn't the meaning of Mark 2:21-22. The meaning is that Jesus came to establish something new. Something that wasn't an attempt to patch up what was wrong with the old Covenant of Moses, old forms or traditions. He was there to do something entirely new. Or, rather, to make a way for us to actually fulfil the spirit of the law in a new way by doing away with the old. It is not intended to establish both the old Covenant way and the New Covenant way. The latter replaced the former.
Actually Drakkonis, I have an answer for you, but I am 'hesitant' to provide it, because, for me, you are an unexpected difficult individual to engage in open discussion. Case in point, you are in discussion with Perrie and I have a comment on that one as well, but decline to enter your discussion for the same reason.
Therefore, brother, I am perplexed as to what my reaction to you should be going forward.
If that was the only explanation, the OT would have been totally dropped and the Bible would only be the NT, but we know that is not the case. The OT is included totally, and so that has to have another meaning.
How do you feel about the way this article has gone?
Good day!
There is another way to express the meaning, as the two books are one holistically-speaking.
That is, the Old Testament is essential foundation for the New Testament. (How else would Christians have Jesus without the borrowing of "Christ." I know, a crude play on words. But, my meaning for it should communicate itself.)
Now then, Peter in his 'book,' and though some might dread it, Paul in his letter actually enlightens the Church of this very thing:
and,
While I appreciate the literature and poetry, the Bible is an amalgamation of ancient contradictory texts with little more weight than The Lord of the Rings...
That said, in the New Testaments at least the books attributed to the original twelve disciples have some claim to authenticity. The books of Paul do not. They are the words of an evangelist who was much later glorified by Romans for claiming the Jewish Cult of Jesus for Imperial Rome. Many who now identify as Christian should more correctly be called "Paulists".
So my question to you is, do you think he would have approved of how the faith evolved?
If there is somehow eternal life beyond death, I think current Jesus would more incredulous that his name is still being uttered. He’d be so far beyond his ancient roots that he’d be embarrassed at just how uninformed he was about everything that was impossible to know as his mortal human self, and that his ancient teachings were and continue to be responsible for so many unintended consequences in this realm. By now he’s changed his name and is a good natured atheist. In that realm there would probably be trillions of souls following more contemporary versions of messiahs, all of whom making their own claims about the unknowable aspects of that realm. The masses would still be seeking unknowable knowledge. He’d be the wiser.
[deleted]
For the record, JBB’s meme that was removed was entirely consistent with my comment.
Please explain, because I didn't see it. If you have a good answer, I will restore.
he’d be embarrassed at just how uninformed he was about everything that was impossible to know as his mortal human self, and that his ancient teachings were and continue to be responsible for so many unintended consequences in this realm.
Trump supporters at large believe that he is god’s choice as a leader for this country. This is undeniable. Trump rallies are filled with flags, signs, and tee shirts promoting this insane idea. How do you think Jesus would feel about that? You don’t hear Biden’s supporters running around making those kinds of idiotic claims and advertising it on flags and signs.
In the first century everyone who was anyone in the Grecco Roman world was also credited with divine parentage. Julius Ceasar was the Son of Zeus. Cleopatra was the Daughter of ISIS. Marc Anthony was the Son of Poseidon and Ceaser Augustus was Son of Apollo. It was expected.
By then Eastern Buddhist philosophy had also reached the Roman World. The Red Letter words of Christ are almost word for word lifted from the Book of Buddha. Once Christ and his philosophy was adopted by Rome the obvious thing was to also make him a Son of God. It still takes a very creative reading of Christ's own words as recorded in the NT to read that Christ ever personally proclaimed his own divinity...
Once Saul later Paul coopted Christ for Rome ancient Rome's publicity machine did the rest.
Resulting in the Biggest Bestseller of All Time!
Just the Christ merch is billion dollar business.
And let’s not forget the televangelists who overtly ask for your donations, because god wants them to have a new private plane, mega mansion, etc. In my mind there could be no more true sign that an omnipotent god does not exist, than for reprehensible challenges like that to go ubiquitously unanswered.
Not true at all.
Caesar's family claimed ancient descent from Venus. His father was a praetor. Cleopatra's mother is unknown, though no one claimed her mother was diety.
Marc Antony's father was a disgraced praetor. Augustus was the son of a praetor as well.
It was expected.
Not at all. Where do you get your Roman history from? All of the Romans came from the governing class, offspring of Senators. The idea that they were running around calling themselves sons of Gods is silly.
Paul coopted Christ for Rome ancient Rome's publicity machine did the rest
Paul, and Christians in general, were persecuted by Rome. Christians were about the only religion that was persecuted by the generally tolerant Roman Empire, who co-opted other religions and added them to Roman theology. .
Dude! Nobody has ever actually been the real child of a god! Nobody! There is no such thing. Anyone can claim to be a god, without proof!
I didn't say he was son of a god only that he was proclaimed as such. His assassination was presaged on it plus he declared himself Dictator For Life as his divine privilege. Even if he had not, that does not alter the fact that claims of divine parentage were common back then!
What does that have to do with anything? Nothing of what you wrote was true. Caesar did not claim to be the son of Zues.
tI didn't say he was son of a god only that he was proclaimed as such
No, he wasn't.
Even if he had not, that does not alter the fact that claims of divine parentage were common back then!
No, they weren't, which is why all of the examples you listed are false. Roman pagans believed in ancestral descent from Gods in the very distant past. Thus, as I said, Caesar, as a Julian, claimed to be a descendant of Venus from the time of Rome's founding.
It's story telling at it's finest!
I stand by what I said. I provided a source...
Your argument is reduced to mere denials.
That is an interesting POV. I am not sure what Jesus would think. I am pretty sure he would be confused by all the variations there are on what he preached.
[deleted]
Sorry, but the brain behind it all was Mary Magdalena.
|
Compare with this verse:
One of the charges Pilate (read) in the 'docket': 'Jesus was (said) to be King of the Jews.'
Thanks for posting this CB. I find Matthew to be the best of the testaments since it was the closest to his when he lived.
Like everyone I read of immortals and supernatural magic in books, butt though I've spent a lifetime looking, have found no worldly evidence of those...
I have been a lifelong agnostic who upset the family when I refused confirmation in our church when I was 13. I have never understood the fervor that some have to disrespect another's religious beliefs.
Religion is part of the human experience and has been for our history, across all cultures and time with a vast majority of people still today with some sort religious or spiritual beliefs. Cleary there is some rational for such a pervasive, enduring form of collective thought.
Perhaps it's part of the evolution of both the physiology of our brains and social organization. We want to see patterns, make sense of chaos, to see purpose. Also, for humans to live and thrive together, we required organizing constructs to govern ourselves, our family and our tribe. Religion has been part of those constructs.
There are some books that I read, even when younger, that had a profound impact on me. One such book was Victor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning which I first read in Junior High. This book was a result of his 3-4 year experience in four different concentration camps to include Auschwitz.
I recently survived a Stage 4 cancer diagnosis requiring two multiple week sessions of chemo therapy and a 15 hour surgery referred to at Johns Hopkins as the mother of all surgeries. Complications kept me hospitalized for ten weeks followed by two more hospitalizations of several weeks. I've now been cancer free for a year.
My survival was of course due to amazing medical care from a large team of professionals and a strong wife and daughter that I will be ever grateful for. Early into my treatment, I reread Frankel's book. While not solely responsible, I believe that it helped to contribute to the healthy, positive attitude that I maintained during my treatment. I also believe that we are a complicated package with a relationship between our biology, psychology, sociology and some sort of spiritual self with the whole greater than the sum of our parts.
I won't summarize Frankl's book here, but from the title you should conclude that Frankl disagreed with Freud, man isn't primarily in a search for pleasure nor as Adler taught, we aren't searching for power (Putin an exception to the rule) but that we are searching for meaning or purpose to life. You are most successful if you find what life means to you and it isn't necessarily the same for all.
One of the key takeaways for me was that one thing that I was solely responsible for was my attitude. Since I believe that my attitude was related to my overall being, it was to my advantage to keep a positive one as it could help me to get better and clearly helped me get the most from my remaining life if I wasn't going to get better.
I was also reminded by the book that Todd Rundgren was right when he wrote, Love is the Answer. It is how you truly know another person, their essence, features and potential. Was Jesus just a man or more, as an agnostic, I don't know, but I do recognize that the central tenant of this religion as well as others, is the love of humanity, the love of the belief in Christ and the love of Christians for others.
Stellar days, living cancer-free!
You got that right, I was very lucky. The cancer originated in my appendix, very rare and usually not found in time. Mine was found after it had started spreading, but was first thought to be in an very early stage. Laparoscopic surgery would have confirmed but the state had curtailed that in the earlier days of COVID. A follow-on CTT scan showed an extensive spread throughout the abdomen but fortunately it didn't enter my blood stream so my liver, lungs, brain were unaffected.
I lost my ex-wife the mother of our children to cancer that started in her appendix, by the time it was discovered it was too late.
You are, indeed lucky.
I'm very sorry for your family. That happens more often than not with that cancer.
I was fortunate that this relatively new procedure exists, JHH is one of the leaders in the surgery and mine was just caught in time.
Yes, the procedures have advanced quite a bit since she was diagnosed in 1997 with it.
What else do I have to offer up? Ah yes, all of C. G. Jung and it does not matter in what order. Neither does it matter whether or not the Gods and their adopted offspring actually exist ... what does matter is they have been adopted by both our consciousness and unconsciousness, we can no more escape them than we can our parents, nor our heros and heroines ... nor the faeries that dance beneath leaves with the rising sun, those I have seen with both eyes, the one that looks outward and the other that looks inward.