posted
While we don't know too much that is specific about the author(s) of Luke, we can determine from the writing that it was written primarily for a non-Jewish audience.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:They may predate extant copies of Genesis (but then, so does Plato), but they were still just folklore, written down casually. Our version was given to us by God. We didn't copy anything from anyone, "defensible scholarly position" or not.
.
How do you know this?
How do I know anything? It comes from a good source, and it makes sense. I've never done the Michaelson Morley experiments, but I do accept the known value of the speed of light in a vacuum. Why? Because I heard it from a guy, who heard it from a guy, but the chain in question seems fairly reliable to me.
Why? How do you know things? Do you experience each and everything personally before you can say you know it?
My g'g'g'g'g'g'etc'grandparents were at Sinai, and saw God reveal Himself and give us the Torah. They walked through the Red Sea on dry land. They ate manna for 40 years. And they told their kids all about it. As did their 3 million friends and neighbors.
You know the game "telephone"? You whisper in the ear of the person next to you, and they whisper what they heard to the next person, and so on. By the time you get around the whole circle, what's being whispered bears no resemblance whatsoever to what you started out with.
Now. Imagine that you didn't whisper the word. Instead, you spent years of your life teaching the word in the company of others who knew the word as well. Tens of thousands of people in parallel, and not only in parallel, but with horizontal crosschecking as well. Learning Torah is our national sport, David. There is no point at which someone could have passed this all off on us. We're too bloody stubborn for that.
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: The earliest Masoretic text is from the 10th century CE, and the Septuagaint from the 3rd century BCE. The documentary hypothesis, which most impartial scholars embrace in one form or another,
Hmm... as Rabbit said earlier, you're kind of wasting your time. Here's a link to a blog entry I wrote called DH Idiocy 1. My apologies if you find that tactless, but I think the DH is one of the funniest pieces of non-scholarship ever perpetrated. It just makes no sense at all.
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: I know that within Jewish scholarship there is a long tradition of Moses's having written the Torah, but it's merely that: tradition. The Torah ITSELF doesn't even claim that authorship.
Sure it does.
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: Until we find ancient texts in hieretic or something that are word-for-word the same as the MT,
Nah. If you find those, you'll claim we copied from them. Don't kid a kidder.
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: I'll mentally ammend "our version was given to us by God" so it reads "I BELIEVE our version was given to us by GOD." And so on.
Feel free to emend as the spirit moves you. If you do it with God's Torah, why not do it with what I say?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rabbit, not all Christians spend their time preaching the way Ron does, speaking falsely about my religion. I consider what he's doing to be offensive. It could, in fact, be seen as a violation of the TOS, if I were so petty as to invoke that.
Then stop speaking falsely about mine.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: While I do not expect you to accept this view of history as true, given that it is the most widely accepted view for the origins of Christianity, it is hardly fair for you to take such strong offense against those who espouse it.
Life isn't fair.
I never said anything about the fairness of life, I referred only to the fairness of your behavior.
Do you really mean to imply that the unfairness of life justifies your own unjust behavior?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rabbit, not all Christians spend their time preaching the way Ron does, speaking falsely about my religion. I consider what he's doing to be offensive. It could, in fact, be seen as a violation of the TOS, if I were so petty as to invoke that.
Then stop speaking falsely about mine.
Lisa's flip response to me and others here indicate that she feels no more or ethical obligation to show others the respect she demands. If I am incorrect, perhaps your request that she stop speaking falsely about your religion will be answered with an apology. She has never shown a willingess to do that before and I will be shocked if she does now.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: While I do not expect you to accept this view of history as true, given that it is the most widely accepted view for the origins of Christianity, it is hardly fair for you to take such strong offense against those who espouse it.
Life isn't fair.
I never said anything about the fairness of life, I referred only to the fairness of your behavior.
Do you really mean to imply that the unfairness of life justifies your own unjust behavior?
My behavior isn't unjust. You said that it wasn't fair for me to take offensive, because of what you characterized (without support) as "the most widely accepted view for the origins of Christianity". When someone tells me that what I'm doing isn't fair, when what they really mean is just that they don't like it, my usual response is a sarcastic "aw", or the like. "Life isn't fair" may be seen as a version of the sarcastic "aw".
quote:Rabbit, not all Christians spend their time preaching the way Ron does, speaking falsely about my religion. I consider what he's doing to be offensive. It could, in fact, be seen as a violation of the TOS, if I were so petty as to invoke that.
Then stop speaking falsely about mine.
If I have, I apologize.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: While I do not expect you to accept this view of history as true, given that it is the most widely accepted view for the origins of Christianity, it is hardly fair for you to take such strong offense against those who espouse it.
Life isn't fair.
I never said anything about the fairness of life, I referred only to the fairness of your behavior.
Do you really mean to imply that the unfairness of life justifies your own unjust behavior?
My behavior isn't unjust. You said that it wasn't fair for me to take offensive, because of what you characterized (without support) as "the most widely accepted view for the origins of Christianity". When someone tells me that what I'm doing isn't fair, when what they really mean is just that they don't like it, my usual response is a sarcastic "aw", or the like. "Life isn't fair" may be seen as a version of the sarcastic "aw".
Hope that helps.
It doesn't.
I could easily give you a hundred references to scholarly secular histories of the early christian era which also support my point if I thought it would make any difference. I know that no matter how much data I could produce to back my point, you would still respond in the same sarcastic condescending flippant way.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, you don't have to believe me, but if we found a papyrus scroll with hieratic writing that dates from the 13th or 14th centuries BCE, and the contents were essentially the same as the extant MT or LXX, I'd be the first to say, "Yes, Moses very possibly wrote this." I have no vested interest in seeing Judaism shown to be erroneous. I have reached the conclusion that the oral traditions that kept Hebrew history alive in people's minds for over six centuries evolved somewhat and were considerably tweaked when finally committed to writing, but I am certainly open to being proven wrong.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you are interested, I can provide you an extensive bibliography. But before I undertake the effort to compile such a list honestly tell me that you would read even one reference on my list and consider the information presented with an open mind.
I can't actually believe that you are arguing the position you have taken. My claim is the most widely accepted history of Christianity accepts that it began as part of the Judaism. I know that you think this idea is false but if we can't agree that it is widely accepted by most secular, Christian and even Jewish people then you view of reality is so radically different from mine then I don't know where to begin the conversation.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that it gets problematic when, because Jesus and the early church came out of the Jewish community, we try to fit Christian concepts and theology into Jewish models. The "pegs" don't really fit into the "holes".* You have to bend and stretch both out of shape to do it. And it isn't necessary. We can acknowledge the historical roots of Jesus without it.
*Not meaning "holes" to be perjorative or to indicated that from a Jewish point of view there was something missing.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
David Bowles, most Bible students assume that Moses learned the creation story(ies) from verbal accounts handed down among the Hebrews, and also possibly from Egy[tian sources--after all he had a complete Egytian education as a member of the royal family. But here is the real question--did Moses get his creation account from the Babylonians (in their Gilgamesh epic, or whatever) or did BOTH derrive from a common source? The most likely explanation logically is that the global Flood of Genesis actually occurred, and so naturally there are many different accounts of this preserved in many different ancient cultures.
Lisa, do you yourself really believe that "repentance atones for all transgressions," as stated by Moses Maimonides, whom you quoted, with apparent favor?
Any intelligent being must have freedom of choice, in other words, a moral nature, in order to be perfect. Otherwise he would merely be a robot, or an animal.
God is perfect. Do you deny that God has freedom of choice?
Having freedom of choice is not sin. Having an experiential knowledge of sin, as we do, is the result of having excercised the free power of choice wrongly. God has the knowledge of good and evil too, but it is not through His experience, but through our experience, since He upholds our very breath. See:
"In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind." (Job 12:10)
"The spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life." (Job 33:4)
"Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:" (Isaiah 42:5)
"and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified:" (Daniel 5:23)
If you admit that God has freedom of choice, then you must of logical necessity admit that God could choose to sin. To the Christian, Calvary is a revelation of God's final choice to refuse to embrace sin. At Calvary, God made manifest His choice to reject sin and put it from Him.
Calvary is also a revelation at one point in space and time of the pain that sin, from its inception, has caused to the heart of God. How long will we continue to subject God to the knowledge of our experience of sin, when He is utterly pure and holy, and determined to refuse sin forever?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, please stop using phrases like "to the Christian" as if your conclusion includes all of us. I know it is hard to do - I forget often myself.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know. Possibly. I don't know how typical those views are to Adventist Christians or how much diversity there is in Adventist views.
I should (though I know I often fail) refrain from saying things like "to all Catholics" unless I think it is pretty much core doctrine.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that it gets problematic when, because Jesus and the early church came out of the Jewish community, we try to fit Christian concepts and theology into Jewish models. The "pegs" don't really fit into the "holes".* You have to bend and stretch both out of shape to do it. And it isn't necessary. We can acknowledge the historical roots of Jesus without it.
*Not meaning "holes" to be perjorative or to indicated that from a Jewish point of view there was something missing.
Well for some of us Jesus was a staple belief as far back as Adam. The doctrine kept getting modified and people apostatized til Noah. Flood fixed things but it got all funny again by Abraham. Got messed up again until Moses came. And it was up and down again until by the time Jesus came Jews had an extremely mistaken view of the messiah as espoused by the Pharisees and Sadducees.
So at least for me Jesus was a restoration of many beliefs that had been misunderstood, and a fulfillment of the law of moses which was of God. The law of Moses was supposed to point the Jews towards Jesus' coming. Surprise surprise it got all mucked up again and it was not until the 1800's that things were corrected. But hey thats just one mans feelings.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I guess we are lucky here at Hatrack that you are not the only observant Jew who participates and your intolerant and bigoted views are balanced by others who are able to show respect to those who do not share their religious views.
So I shouldn't mention that while I frequently find her manner of speaking excessive and unnecessarily rude, and might argue a few of the points, I agree with probably 90% of the substance of her posts in this thread (let's limit that to today's and yesterday's as I don't have time to review back farther than that)?
(Of course, this post is guaranteed to get both parties ticked at me, but what else is new.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Did it, indeed? You think killing off 99.999% of humanity is a reasonable fix to problems of interpretation? It didn't even have the virtue of being a 'Final' solution!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
But our interpretation of those beliefs is coloured by what we some of us see as the fulfillment. Even the gospels were written with the knowledge of "the end of the story".
Our interpretation(s) is not going to be the same as the interpretation of people who aren't seeing it through the same filter.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that it gets problematic when, because Jesus and the early church came out of the Jewish community, we try to fit Christian concepts and theology into Jewish models. The "pegs" don't really fit into the "holes".* You have to bend and stretch both out of shape to do it. And it isn't necessary. We can acknowledge the historical roots of Jesus without it.
*Not meaning "holes" to be perjorative or to indicated that from a Jewish point of view there was something missing.
Absolutely km. As I see it, Judaism and Christianity arose out of the same tradition. That tradition was diverse enough two centuries ago that some Jews believed Jesus was both the Son of God and the Messiah while others rejected such a possibility. The group that believed Jewish traditions supported Jesus, evolved into modern day Christianity. The school who believed the Jewish traditions were incompatible with accepting Jesus, evolved into modern day Judaism. Both groups have been evolving along side each other and in response to each other for 2 thousand years so it is completely understandable that Christians and Jews understand the ancient Jewish tradition very differently.
If you believe that Jesus is the messiah promised in the ancient Hebrew scriptures, then that belief colors how you read the scriptures. You will see Jesus everywhere in those text. Similarly if you believe that Jesus was not the Messiah, this will also color your reading of the ancient texts. I have found it very interesting and often inspiring to read Jewish commentaries on the Hebrew scriptures. In doing so, I have learned alot of things which have enriched my understanding of the scriptures as a Christian but since I do accept Jesus there will always be some aspects of the Jewish view that I cannot accept. I have frequently seen how verses that Christians interpret as being prophecies of Jesus can also easily be understood in other ways. In some cases its clear that Christians have shoe horned Jesus in where he might not belong. In other cases it seems to me that Jews have squeezed him out where evidence for him is clear.
Most of the time, I find the Jewish interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures to be interesting, logical and often beautiful even when it is different from my understanding. I find value in comparing the two systems of belief even though I recognize that they are not fully compatible. I have found I can learn a great deal from Judaism even if I reject some of the basic tennets.
But unfortunately, my views are quite heretical to fundamentalists in both camps. The very fact that I have used the word "interpretation" will be offensive to the most orthodox on both sides who reject the very idea that they are interpreting the written word.
If I understand Lisa correctly, she believes that the Jewish tradtions and beliefs have been preserved unchanged since the time of Moses. As a result any suggestion that Judaism has evolved over the past 2000 years in response to Christianity is heretical. If a Christian understands the Hebrew scriptures any differently than she does, she feels that they have stolen and defiled something she finds sacred.
Similarly Ron Lambert seems to believe that the scriptures can't be interpreted, that they have one clear and irrefutable meaning. Hence, anyone who disagrees is either stupid, uninformed, illogical or dishonest.
For fundamentalists, it may simply not be possible to respectfully discuss scriptural subjects with those who have essentially different views. If that's the case, those people should avoid such discussions at Hatrack because we have all agreed to show respect to each others views in this forum.
[ December 13, 2006, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I guess we are lucky here at Hatrack that you are not the only observant Jew who participates and your intolerant and bigoted views are balanced by others who are able to show respect to those who do not share their religious views.
So I shouldn't mention that while I frequently find her manner of speaking excessive and unnecessarily rude, and might argue a few of the points, I agree with probably 90% of the substance of her posts in this thread (let's limit that to today's and yesterday's as I don't have time to review back farther than that)?
(Of course, this post is guaranteed to get both parties ticked at me, but what else is new.)
Not at all rivka. As I tried to say, I do understand that you and Lisa hold theological views that are very close but In my experience you have nearly always shown respect to those with different views (religious and otherwise) and Lisa has nearly never done the same.
Not long ago, Lisa was vehement that I was "antihuman" (her exact word) because I challenged her views on private property rights and she wouldn't even admit that she was being insulting. I have never seen you behave in such a manner, rivka.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
It seemed like you were rejecting what Lisa was saying as well as how she said it. But I also believe that Christianity is a *struggles to find inoffensive word and fails* corruption of Judaism.
Then again, Mormons consider Judaism a corruption of what you see as God's word, so I guess we're even. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If you are interested, I can provide you an extensive bibliography. But before I undertake the effort to compile such a list honestly tell me that you would read even one reference on my list and consider the information presented with an open mind.
I can't actually believe that you are arguing the position you have taken. My claim is the most widely accepted history of Christianity accepts that it began as part of the Judaism. I know that you think this idea is false but if we can't agree that it is widely accepted by most secular, Christian and even Jewish people then you view of reality is so radically different from mine then I don't know where to begin the conversation.
I accept that Christians see Christianity as starting with Judaism. And it's certainly the case that it did get started as a Jewish sect.
But you said more than that. You said that both Judaism and Christianity are branches off of what came before, and that's certainly not true. Judaism is what it was. It did not change. And if you produce a book by secular scholars that says otherwise, I won't care. I can produce twice as many books by secular scholars that say the Bible was completely invented, as David seems to think. They're wrong.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, do you yourself really believe that "repentance atones for all transgressions," as stated by Moses Maimonides, whom you quoted, with apparent favor?
Why would I have cited him if I didn't. Of course I do.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Any intelligent being must have freedom of choice, in other words, a moral nature, in order to be perfect. Otherwise he would merely be a robot, or an animal.
God is perfect. Do you deny that God has freedom of choice?
There you go, trying to limit God by using human terms to describe Him. The question is meaningless.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Having freedom of choice is not sin.
Who said it was?
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If you admit that God has freedom of choice,
When you start with "If", you need to realize that when the conditional clause that follows isn't true, what comes after it is worthless. I admit nothing of the sort. The concept doesn't even apply. Choice is, by definition, a temporal concept. It denotes a change in state from not having made a decision to having made one. God isn't bound by time, and all that He does He does by His will. Choice is an inapplicable concept.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: then you must of logical necessity admit that God could choose to sin.
And see? I don't of logical necessity agree with that at all. It's utterly fanciful. The concept of sin doesn't apply to God, because it's God who defines right and wrong.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I guess we are lucky here at Hatrack that you are not the only observant Jew who participates and your intolerant and bigoted views are balanced by others who are able to show respect to those who do not share their religious views.
So I shouldn't mention that while I frequently find her manner of speaking excessive and unnecessarily rude, and might argue a few of the points, I agree with probably 90% of the substance of her posts in this thread (let's limit that to today's and yesterday's as I don't have time to review back farther than that)?
(Of course, this post is guaranteed to get both parties ticked at me, but what else is new.)
Why do you think I'd be ticked at you for that?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that it gets problematic when, because Jesus and the early church came out of the Jewish community, we try to fit Christian concepts and theology into Jewish models. The "pegs" don't really fit into the "holes".* You have to bend and stretch both out of shape to do it. And it isn't necessary. We can acknowledge the historical roots of Jesus without it.
*Not meaning "holes" to be perjorative or to indicated that from a Jewish point of view there was something missing.
Absolutely km. As I see it, Judaism and Christianity arose out of the same tradition. That tradition was diverse enough two centuries ago
Surely you don't mean two centuries.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: that some Jews believed Jesus was both the Son of God and the Messiah while others rejected such a possibility.
It was hardly a dichotomy. There were numerous groups of Jews who thought all manner of people were the messiah around that time. As for Jews who believed in a messiah being a son of god in the way Christianity came to understand it, there were virtually no Jews who believed that. It wasn't until one man (Paul) started bringing the idea to the pagans that the pagan idea of a human as the son of a deity was grafted on.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The group that believed Jewish traditions supported Jesus, evolved into modern day Christianity. The school who believed the Jewish traditions were incompatible with accepting Jesus, evolved into modern day Judaism.
A very Christian-centric view. As though the rejection of JC was some sort of founding principle of ours. Sorry, Rabbit, but we are what we've always been. From Sinai until now, without a break. We had numerous sects arise and fall off. Christianity is only remarkable in that it's lasted as long as it did, and that can be attributed to its hybridization.
Judaism didn't evolve from Judaism. It's an unbroken chain.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Both groups have been evolving along side each other and in response to each other for 2 thousand years so it is completely understandable that Christians and Jews understand the ancient Jewish tradition very differently.
That must be a very comforting thing for you to believe. Shame it isn't true at all. You broke away from us. We didn't "diverge".
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If you believe that Jesus is the messiah promised in the ancient Hebrew scriptures, then that belief colors how you read the scriptures. You will see Jesus everywhere in those text. Similarly if you believe that Jesus was not the Messiah, this will also color your reading of the ancient texts.
We read them in the context set by their authors.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If I understand Lisa correctly, she believes that the Jewish tradtions and beliefs have been preserved unchanged since the time of Moses. As a result any suggestion that Judaism has evolved over the past 2000 years in response to Christianity is heretical.
Only coming from a Jew. From a non-Jew, it's only untrue.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If a Christian understands the Hebrew scriptures any differently than she does, she feels that they have stolen and defiled something she finds sacred.
<nod> Exactly.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: For fundamentalists, it may simply not be possible to respectfully discuss scriptural subjects with those who have essentially different views. If that's the case, those people should avoid such discussions at Hatrack because we have all agreed to show respect to each others views in this forum.
-"No, it is not possible." -"No, I should/will NOT avoid such discussions." -"No, we have not agreed to that respect."
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
-"No, it is not possible." -"No, I should/will NOT avoid such discussions." -"No, we have not agreed to that respect."
No, I disagree with her entire chain of reasoning. That I disagree with her conclusions is almost a side issue.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, whether you call it divergence or schism or breaking away, the fact is that Christianity is a result of Judaism's bifurcation in the late first and second centuries CE. Just like Protestantism is a result of a similar bifurcation. Catholics like to say Protestants broke away, too. It's all the same, however. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it not so. Early Christians, before Paul, were Jews who believed the Messiah had come. Christianity's later expansion does nothing to negate that, nor do their small numbers make the fact of this bifurcation any less salient to Rabbit's points...
[edit]their small numbers= the fact that only a small number of 1st century Jews believed the Christian "heresy"[/edit]
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmboots, when I state a theological proposition unique to Seventh-day Adventists, I say so. When I say something like "to a Christian" I am speaking of mainstream, historic, orthodox Protestant theology. Some of you may be unaware of what this theological thinking consists of. But I doubt if Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, Rudolf Bultmann, et al., would disagree with the basic form of my soteriology (the study of how Christ saves us). They would at least recognize the Paulline sources of my concepts. I try to put these concepts in a clear form, stated plainly, without theological buzzwords.
As a Seventh-day Adventist, I do acknowledge my indebtedness to the great Protestant theologians of history. I especially admire Luther and Wesley and Calvin, though I do not agree with them in everything (especially with Calvin's views about predestination). They laid a foundation I consider worthy to build upon.
If you think something I say about the Atonement of Christ seems strange, I suggest you ask your pastor (assuming he has a seminary education) and see if he thinks what I am saying is so alien. Even most Catholic priests will understand what I am saying, even where it diverges from Catholic views.
I am trying to help people understand the substance of theological thought. Often I state things in philosophical terms that are more familiar to people than theological formulations.
This is also why I am so interested in what Lisa has to say, since she is the most extremely conservative Jewish thinker I have encountered, and I suspect that most of what she has heard from Christians in the past was simplistic and jargonistic. Most of her response seems like blind denial, which is disappointing, since I wish she would think about what I am saying more. But when she equivocates about the power of choice itself, so that she can claim that asking if God has the power of choice is a meaningless question, I come away wondering if we are really communicating.
But it is not for Lisa only that I post these things, of course. To a lesser extent I have some interest in what Mormons may think of the concepts I set forth, since I know that in many respects they diverge from orthodox Protestant theology, but I am not sure how far. But I think even mainline Christians may do well to consider in more depth the basic teachings of Christianity, which sad to say, most church members do not know, having been nurtured by pastors who merely give quaint homilies rather than preach Scripture. That is a personal gripe, I admit, but I do feel that the majority of preachers (pastors and priests) are failing to feed their flocks properly.
There is real thoughtful substance to Biblical Christian teaching, that is worth exploring. I believe it is possible to study deeper and ever deeper into the science of salvation, and ever discover new things, new insights, new revelations of the character of God. This is a study that may well go on for eternity by the Redeemed.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Using "Christian" and meaning only "mainstream, historic, orthodox Protestant" is already pretty misleading, don't you think? You admit that it diverges from Catholic views. So, again. Please be more specific when assigning viewpoints.
And what you say regarding the atonement, doesn't sound strange or even unfamiliar. I just don't agree with it. Nor do many Christians. Don't mistake my disagreement with ignorance. There are plenty of people who have studied as much about their faith as you do about yours and have reached different conclusions.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: This is also why I am so interested in what Lisa has to say, since she is the most extremely conservative Jewish thinker I have encountered, and I suspect that most of what she has heard from Christians in the past was simplistic and jargonistic. Most of her response seems like blind denial, which is disappointing, since I wish she would think about what I am saying more.
Half of what you say is bald assertions. To which you get nothing but a bald (though certainly not blind) denial. And the other half of what you say makes no sense. Maybe it's because you think everything is so clear to you, but you either leave things out of your arguments, or you're just being illogical.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But when she equivocates about the power of choice itself, so that she can claim that asking if God has the power of choice is a meaningless question, I come away wondering if we are really communicating.
I didn't equivocate. You anthropomorphized. What you said made as much sense as the old chestnut about God making a rock so heavy that He Himself cannot lift it. It's an artifact of language that means nothing. God having the ability to choose also means nothing.
Though even if it meant something (which would require a deity who isn't omnipotent and omniscient, but hey, just for the sake of argument, right?), the idea of God sinning is a non-starter, because God decides what sin is in the first place.
You insist on putting your own limitations on God, which I can't imagine is appropriate even in your religion.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But it is not for Lisa only that I post these things, of course.
Gawd, Ron. Don't post them for me at all.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, I'm echoing what kmbboots says: "to the Christian" does not equal "to the mainstream, historic, orthodox Protestant." I'm Catholic - of the mainstream, historic, orthodox sort - and you do not represent my views at all. Much of what you say is indeed comprehensible to me, but I still disagree with it. Please be more specific when you post - perhaps say "to the modern Seventh-day Adventist" instead.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was really good friends with an Adventist from South Africa (wrote a book on prophecy that Ron would salivate over), and he had a similar unintended arrogance (which a lot of denominations share) that his particular iteration of Christianity fixed all the appalling aberrations that have sprung up over the last couple of millennia.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eaguae, all your saying in response to Ron is "no its not!" Of course, he will say, yes it is. And it will go back and forth. As a Mormon I have been there before about the nature of Christianity. It isn't that either of you are wrong as much as you have started a discussion that is harder than just "but Catholics believe and Seventh-day Adventists believe." In fact, I would have to say that the question of "what do Christians believe" is at the heart of centuries of splits and denominational seperations.
My point is that it seems everyone is tilting at definitional windmills. Before you can answer what do Christians believe it might be you have to answer what is a Christian?
Note: I don't think there really is much of a hard and fast rule answer.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional, I can't speak for Eaquae Legit, but I don't have a problem with Ron having his beliefs or stating his beliefs even though I think they are, for the most part, whacky. I do have a problem with him stating them as beliefs that are held by Christians in general.
If I posted that Christians think that coffee-drinking is fine*, I would hope that you would correct me.
If Ron wants to state what Adventists believe, I will gladly let other Adventists shoulder the burden of correcting him. As a Christian, I feel that I am responsible for making it clear that his beliefs are not shared by all of us.
*what I hope is a harmless example.
edit to add: Hey, dkw! Good to see you.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If I posted that Christians think that coffee-drinking is fine*, I would hope that you would correct me"
Frankly, I would agree with you. Of course, that is considered to me such a minor difference between Mormons and other Christians (I asume that is what you are refering to) that it doesn't even come up on my definition of Christian radar screen. Of course, I would have a problem if you said, "anyone who doesn't think drinking coffee is fine is not a Christian."
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps I used too harmless an example. Replace "coffee drinking is fine" with "the only valid scripture is that which was authorized by the Council of Nicea."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say, historically that has been true for much of Christian history - and even for most Christians today. In other words, beliefs held by Christians in general. What I wouldn't say is that has always been the case or that every single Christian believes this. Then again, at what point does a definition become meaningless?
Look, I understand perfectly well that it can be easy to exclude some because of percieved ideas of what "Christians" believe. I also understand the need to extend those ideas to be more inclusive of plurality beliefs. That is why I said the whole discussion is tilting at windmills. It has never been resolved and perhaps never will be.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But would you let the statement stand without qualifications?
I think we are talking past each other - or I am misunderstanding you. My problem with Ron was that he was making generalizations about Christian beliefs that were untrue. By saying "Christians believe" he was giving the impression that certain things are believed by all Christians, not just by some Christians.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Did it, indeed? You think killing off 99.999% of humanity is a reasonable fix to problems of interpretation? It didn't even have the virtue of being a 'Final' solution!
Ill leave the justification of the act to God because according to him everyone except Noah and his family "hated their own blood" and "delighted in killing one another."
And I meant it solved the corruption of the doctrine, I am sure you of all people can appreciate why its a bad thing for folks to create their own dogmas and pass them off as God's word.
Are you seriously condemning God if he did in fact kill off 99.9% of the human race, even though he deemed all but .01% a lost cause? Do you know something He didn't?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me explain what everyone is saying about what Ron is saying.
Ron states X is true for everyone and should be obvious.
The agnostics and aethists say, Um, its not obvious and we don't see how it is true. Please quit messing with Science/history/languages
Ron replies, In Daniel (or some other book that is both Old Testament and Torah), it clearly proves X.
Where Lisa and others of the Jewish faith say, It does not prove that. It does not say that. Please quit messing with my faith.
Ron replies, Well all Christians obviously believe Y which proves Daniel said what I said he said to mean that X is true.
Where a lot of Christians look confused at each other and say, we don't believe that. Please quit messing with our faith.
Now Ron replied with, if you study theology of the Christian faith than you will see that everyone agrees with Z which means we all beleive in Y that proves my points in Daniel which proves--what was I proving again?
Now DKW, a studier of theology of the Christian faith replies, not so.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Did it, indeed? You think killing off 99.999% of humanity is a reasonable fix to problems of interpretation? It didn't even have the virtue of being a 'Final' solution!
Ill leave the justification of the act to God because according to him everyone except Noah and his family "hated their own blood" and "delighted in killing one another."
Are you seriously condemning God if he did in fact kill off 99.9% of the human race, even though he deemed all but .01% a lost cause? Do you know something He didn't?
Since at least 20% of the people in question would be children under 10, yes, I would indeed condemn such a god. As for the propaganda about hating their own blood, I would certainly claim such a thing too if I were guilty of genocide.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Did it, indeed? You think killing off 99.999% of humanity is a reasonable fix to problems of interpretation? It didn't even have the virtue of being a 'Final' solution!
Ill leave the justification of the act to God because according to him everyone except Noah and his family "hated their own blood" and "delighted in killing one another."
Are you seriously condemning God if he did in fact kill off 99.9% of the human race, even though he deemed all but .01% a lost cause? Do you know something He didn't?
Since at least 20% of the people in question would be children under 10, yes, I would indeed condemn such a god. As for the propaganda about hating their own blood, I would certainly claim such a thing too if I were guilty of genocide.
Except that if your parents, your neighbors, and everyone around you is busy killing each other why the devil would God want his children to have to suffer being born into such an environment? Much better to setup a situation where your children can actually have a chance at living a life with joy.
All the children at that time who were 10 or younger are certainly outnumbered by the legions that would be born in such terrible conditions, unless something drastic was done.
But again I that is my perspective, I'd much rather leave the reasoning to God, it certainly was not MY choice to send a flood.
edit:
quote: I would certainly claim such a thing too if I were guilty of genocide.
Well its nice to know that you think genocide is universally evil. Never pictures you for a disciple of Kant KOM.
double edit: You seem to be forgetting that if there is a God and an afterlife that is infinitely more expansive then this life, makes death quite a bit more insignificant.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
