More Jesus Freak Stuff from MadMax

I certainly didn't mean to be rude, and I apologize if that is the way you took it, but I was so stunned by that statement that I didn't know what to say.

I now understand that you were referring to what I would call "doubtful" things and the idea that if one believes that it is sin, to him it is. But, surely you realize that God Himself is the standard of righteousness, and while the Jewish ceremonial system has passed away, in a very objective sense, the Moral Law remains forever.

Finally, there is no private Truth. Some of your remarks come very close to an argument for relativism. It is a characteristic of modern culture to make conundrums over the clearest things. Our Faith has over 2000 years of history, most every major issue has been examined in detail. In the contemporary era there is a strong tendency to rediscover the "theological" wheel.

As you can probably tell, I am an advocate of the Ancient Church or Primitive Christianity. In our day, well meaning attempts at contextualization are seriously distorting not only the Truth of the Gospel but who Jesus actually is. This is no minor issue. It is a non-negotiable unlike some the "disputable" things you mention above.

 

I don't think Jesus is embracing all modern practices. But grace is strong enough to forgive us of those transgressions. Jesus doesn't require us to be perfect, and is willing to forgive. Our challenge is to not use that as a "Get out of jail free" card.

I struggle with this sometimes too. But I think accepting Jesus, coming to him like a child, is the first step. People need to have a relationship with God and then experience the Spirit working within them. We are all stronger because of the molding and shaping of our characters that the Spirit's work does within us. Living a life like Jesus is not something you can start doing on your own, its a process. Paul tells us that we will be not "conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect". We meet God, we are changed, we live a different life. We must actively partipate in this process, though.

The point is that the Jesus will take you, change you, and keep you. He requires that you work hard to change, and work hard to accept his direction. But He is willing and able to forgive.

 

Then with the ancient church and Christianity which is what I enjoy very much I find it often to be the most in conflict with those that say all you have to do is read the bible, and that will tell you everything.

Because the bible was written at a different time and the words and actions had a different context. In order to get more understanding it is wise to learn as much and possible about the traditions and cultures, and original Greek, or Aramaic, or Hebrew that the bible was written in.

For instance the bible doesn't mention women at the last supper, but we know there were women there who played an important part in the last supper. We know this because the Jesus was there for a particular Jewish tradition, and that tradition requires women to be a part of it.

I believe that looking at the ancient texts and traditions doesn't distort or change who Jesus is, it gives us an opportunity to understand more.

I don't think you, me, or anyone else fully understands who Jesus was, and as Christians we should constantly be on a search and path to discover more, and broaden our understanding.

The religious people in Jesus time had a tradition of questioning faith, and were encouraged to debate the meaning of religious texts. Sometimes then, like now, people had ides about it that weren't accurate, but the idea was that through questioning, testing, doubting, and searching, they would discover a deeper meaning.

So for one person to come out and say that another person's idea on Jesus is completely wrong or made up doesn't seem to be so strictly ancient church based, especially if they have used reason, and study to arrive at that place.

I'm not sure if you were doing that or not, but it seemed like you were approaching that realm. If you were doing that, then we will have to agree to disagree.

 

Max, it is obvious to me that we are talking past each other. You clearly don't understand some of my remarks, and I am apparently not understanding yours. The the issues in play are important enough, but I just don't know how to communicate to you at this point. It is frustrating, but it is snowing outside and that usually "makes all things better." I may try again later.

 

Your thoughtful and measured remarks resonate with me.

One thing I wish you would help me with though; how do you break a person's post up into parts and comment on each section?

 

You have to manually move around the [/QUOTE] and

 

In some ways I think we have more ground for agreement than you realize and in other ways, I am not so sure.

We may be far apart on our notions of "objective truth." Certainly, knowing Christ fully is beyond the capacity of any human and there is no doubt a mystical and mysterious dimension to the historical Christian Faith. However, we have four accounts of the life of Christ and even some non-biblical sources. Do you believe that the events reported and the sayings and acts of Christ are at least as historically accurate as say the written documents regarding Julius Caesar? If you do, then we have a rather clear picture of who Jesus was and what he did.

I fully believe in a "contextual" interpretation of the Bible. You must to some extent understand the language, culture, and backgrounds of the period in which certain portions were written. My main point in this thread which I am having a great deal of difficulty in communicating is that much more damage is done to original meaning by transporting ancient church history into the modern context than by failing to fully contextualize the ancient text. This practice results in pastors dressed as bunnies riding motorcycles at "Easter" during which no mention of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ is made. And the absurd silliness never ends. This practice results in "many false christs going out into the world." This practice results in "designer" Christianity custom made to our modern tastes and preferences.

Hope this helps. If not, Merry Christmas anyway.

 

and

Thanks so much.

In regard to the prophetic calling that is on my life, I often feel alone, but I accept that. It is honor to suffer in any way for Christ.

However, I am really so blessed to be in a church with such sweet fellowship. My relatively small church is Bapticostal in nature. Strong in the Word, alive in the Spirit, and aggressive in evangelism and ministry especially to the poor. We are multi-ethnic, all social statuses, old and young. Half the church of about 150 are children. We have many ex offenders. I have seen more adult baptisms in the last year than any time in my life. Many more than any of the Mega churches in my area. Our Monday night prayer meeting has become a major event and every Tuesday teams of evangelists hit the streets. I stand amazed.

Merry Christmas.

 

Responding to rimbaud:

Well, I think this issue starts to get a bit tricky quite quickly. From my limited experience with this subject it seems to me that in some ways Third World churches are more conservative and in other ways they are more aware and arguably more progressive. For me it’s more a case of them existing in a different context and tending to have different strengths and weaknesses than we tend to have in the First World. I don’t doubt that there will be pains as different groups come into contact more, and hopefully we can manage those issues better than we are currently managing many of our own conflicts between First World churches. Will we be able to listen to each other and learn from each other, and become a more aware and informed greater whole, or will we remain closed off and stuck, and get into different forms of tribal warfare with each other? We’re all wrong about some things we think are true, of course, and we’re all unaware on some issues that others are aware of. Almost every church and every person has something to learn from every other church and person, but all too often this isn’t acknowledged or pursued. Many churches are tempted to establish rigid positions because this makes it easier for them to control their own members. Some churches focus heavily on the laws of the OT, for example, and they downplay the new gift and the new direction that Jesus brought, and I suspect that if you really dig into that issue you’ll find that they do this for reasons of power and control, their own power and control over their members.

I guess you have to pick a definition for renewal, but for me the rise of what is being called the emergent church, and tendency towards depoliticization in some of the right wing churches, and some emerging progressiveness in the Catholic church – although perhaps this last pope is a step backwards – all suggest a renewal period for me.

I don’t find many redeeming qualities in the prosperity gospel elements, but I think a lot of good is done by the self help elements. Note, however, that some of these end up being transition churches that some people go to for a while and then move on to other churches, and other operate at different levels. A church’s main focus might be something like “refuge and healing” but when people move farther along in that process there often are outreach activities that the church is involved in as well.

I think you should look at Christianity primarily from the bottom up instead of the top down. The fundamental point of contact between an individual and God is at the personal level. These individuals come together to learn from each other and support each other and that is a basic church. “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.” For various reasons it’s often useful to have bigger and more organized churches, and historically this has obviously most often been the case, but these bigger organizations are prone to certain kinds of problems as well. How these organisations will evolve in the future is an interesting question with a lot of different factors at play, imo. In the past it was easier for churches to isolate their members from the Bible and its message and thereby have more control over them, for example. The most obvious is perhaps the Latin mass, but the use of the King James Version of the Bible is another. It is a very old translation that is difficult for people today to understand, and therefore church members read it less and trust their understanding of it less. But with these internets and other such communication enhancing thingies around today, however, it’s more likely that a person from such a church who likely hasn’t read much of bible himself will at some point post something on a message board like, “The bible said that God is angry and judgemental and hates gays, and I know this because my pastor told me that the bible says this!”, and then have someone respond, “Please read X and Y and tell me what you think they say on this issue, and btw here’s a link to a much newer transition that’s much easier to understand.” So the power that some of these more manipulative big churches had to control information and control what their members believe has been reduced, and I obviously think that’s a good thing, but at the same time the same communication devices are making it possible for other organizations to communicate and grow, and this is often a good thing as well. Awareness about what’s going on in African and various aid and support initiatives I think have been made possible through the internet, for example, like the micro loan groups. What all this will mean for church organizations in the future is an interesting and complicated question, it seems to me.

 

I gave you a child, and you didn't want it
Thats the most that I have to give.
I gave you a house, and you didn't haunt it
Now where am I supposed to live.
I gave you a tree and you did not embrace it
I gave you a nightmare and you didn't chase it
I'd give you a dream and you'd only wake from it
Now I'll never go to sleep again.
I'd give you a treasure and you'd only take from it
Look at the hole where jewelry had been
Baby oh baby
Why must you escape from it
This love that we once called our friend.
(hoo ooo, ooo. hoo ooo ooo...)

I gave you my body and you ate aplenty
I gave you ten lives and you wasted twenty.
Now I'm standing empty, helpless and bare, without a morsel left of me to give
And you, you have vanished, into the air
The air in which I must live

 

Interesting discussion.

I can't comment about the Biblical nature of Heaven and Hell but from a sociological side those seem to me to be a reward - punishment device meant to reinforce belief. Most proselytizing religions have something similar such as some of the more aggressive proselytizing branches of Buddhism emphasize hell(s) and heaven(s) which can be avoided or attained through following the doctrine.

 

Yes, I think there is a lot of misleading stuff going on. And I can't imagine pastors talking about Easter without the resurrection and crucifixion. We agree that is crazy.

I think we agree on contextualizing text, traditions and culture, based on the times, but think that understanding that can help our understanding grow even today.

Thanks for the civil discussion.

 

Here is an excellent article from Jason Boyett and his take on Jesus and Christmas.

Rant: Not "Standing" for Christmas
Thursday, December 3, 2009

So yesterday I spent a lot of my day being annoyed with Focus on the Family. I have mixed feelings about them as an organization. Through publications like Boundless and the now-defunct TrueU (I have written for both), they provide thoughtful resources for young Christians. Founder James Dobson got his start as a counselor giving advice to families, and you know what? As a parent, I think he gives pretty good advice. I even quote him, favorably, in my upcoming revision to Guy's Guide to Life.

Focus on the Family does OK when they actually, you know, focus on the family. But I absolutely do not like when Focus on the Family gets focused on things like politics and culture wars, because inevitably they get sidetracked. Non-issues become super-important. Big issues get lost.

Case in point: the war on Christmas. I feel a rant coming on.

FotF wants us to "Stand for Christmas" by taking part in a rate-a-retailer campaign they've devised in order to convince retailers that they need to keep Christ in Christmas. Their stated point is "to assist you, the consumer" in making a wise decision about where you spend your Christmas money. Because as the Bible says, we should only shop at Christian retailers who say the word "Christmas." (Wait...the Bible doesn't say that? What?!?)

So they list a bunch of retail chains, and you can rate their Christmasy-ness based on whether or not their signage and catalogs say "Merry Christmas!" (Good!) or "Happy Holidays!" (Evil!), and whether they feature religious decorations (mangers, angels) or generic holiday decor (snowmen).

The result? According to their "up-to-the-second" ratings, Banana Republic is 83% offensive to Christians (apparently BR employees are instructed not to say "Christmas"). Old Navy is 58% offensive, probably based on interactions like this posted one: They had the store looking very nice but I did not hear any Christmas music! When I said "Merry Christmas" the employee responded with "Happy Holidays." I then said no "Merry Christmas" and he just walked away!!!

(I would walk away from you, too, if you replied to my seasonal greeting with rudeness.)

Kohl's, however, is only 4% offensive. Because its cashiers have been known to say "Merry Christmas."

I am offended. I'm not terribly offended by Banana Republic or Old Navy. I'm not even 4 percent offended by Kohl's. I am offended at the idea of a Christian group rating secular stores on how much they embrace Christmas. Why? Let me count the ways.

1. It offends me logically. Old Navy is a clothing store. It is a secular retailer. It is not a Christian store. Why are we concerned that secular retailers are not exhibiting religious behavior? They are not a religious entity. They are trying to attract customers -- as many customers as possible, some of whom are not religious. It's like the local mosque being offended because I, a Christian, am not praying five times a day toward Mecca. It's like me being offended that my dog doesn't type very well. He's a DOG. He's not supposed to be typing.

2. It offends me historically. The whole "taking Christ out of Christmas" thing sorta loses flavor for me when you look at the history of Christmas. For at least the first couple centuries of Christianity, the Church didn't celebrate Christ's birth. There WAS NO Christmas. Christ's resurrection was a huge commemoration, but no one gave any thought to noting (much less celebrating) his birth.

That is, until Constantine needed to legitimize Christianity in Roman society in the 3rd century. One of the ways he did it was by injecting Jesus into Saturnalia, the popular Roman winter solstice festival. That way the Romans could keep their major holiday and the Church could get some religious mileage out of it, too. Should we boycott stores that "Take Christ out of Christmas" by watering down the holiday? Only if we're OK with Roman pagans picketing us because we watered down Saturnalia by mixing it with Jesus. (And don't get me started on all the other Christmas traditions -- gifts, mistletoe, trees -- that have pagan origins. Are they bad? No. But they're not originally Christian. We don't own them.)

3. It offends me socially. You know what kind of retailer rating I'd like to see? I'd like to see one that rates them based on how they treat people. Like, do they use sweatshop labor? Is their clothing made by nine-year-olds in the Philippines? How do they treat their employees here? I could care less about what they say at the check-out stand or what signs they display. What's more important to me is what they do. It occurs to me that Jesus made this very distinction in taking offense at the Pharisees -- he condemned them for hiding their evil behind nice, clean appearances. Based on the logic of this campaign, it doesn't matter if a company exploits their workers. What matters is whether or not the catalogs say "Christmas" on the cover. A Jesus who cared about taking a stand for Christmas today would have to be a Jesus who, in the Bible, praised the Pharisees for advertising their ritual cleanliness while neglecting widows and orphans. If you find that Jesus in the Bible, let me know, because I can't.

4. It offends me morally. What about consumerism and greed? That doesn't come into question at all in this campaign. Stand for Christmas isn't telling you to spend less this Christmas. It's not telling you to stand against culture by curbing your materialistic tendencies. It's not telling you to focus less on getting and more on giving, which I think should be a pretty big part of the Christian holiday message. No...it's telling you to keep on being a consumer, as long as you're consuming from the proper Jesus-confirmed sources.

5. It offends my sense of consistency. You know what would be interesting? Instead of rating secular stores on how secular they are -- which is stupid (see #1) -- what if we rated churches on how secular they've become? How much do they talk about Jesus, versus how much they talk about Gospel-free subjects like living a Joel Osteen-approved "best life now" or claiming one's financial blessings? How much of their resources do they spend on the poor, versus how much they spend on lighting and media? Forget the secularization of Christmas. What about the secularization of Christianity the rest of the year?

If I think hard enough, I can probably come up with a few more reasons. But I'm tired of thinking about the subject because it's just so dumb. It's not that I hate Christmas. I love Christmas. I love the idea of the incarnation and what it means. I also love the ideas of the Santa Claus tradition (which actually does have its foundations in Christianity) and trees with twinkly lights and peace on earth and goodwill toward men. And I love to give and receive gifts. It's just that I think the outrage about the Christian-ness of Christmas is silly and misguided.

If we really are in a culture war, then "happy holidays" outrage is like finding a wounded soldier out on the battlefield. He's lost his left arm. He's in shock. He's bleeding out from a mangled shoulder stump. But what catches our attention is -- oh, no! -- a paper cut on his right arm! We've got to take care of THAT! A war is waging! So we devote all our attention to that paper cut. We mess around calling for help and slapping band-aids on the paper cut and warning others against similar paper-cut injuries. We wail and scream about this terrible war that has caused such paper-cut tragedies. We're busy! We're helping! We're making a difference!

Meanwhile, there are other, more important things to think about. Like the bloody stump, which probably should have our attention. Don't you think?

Let's worry about the big stuff. Rant over. Happy holidays!

http://blog.jasonboyett.com/2009/12...or+of+the+Pocket+Guides)&utm_content=FaceBook

 

This is super awesome.

 

Missed this before, but I would like to know more about this. Care to recommend some books?

 

Missed your reply

The devil, in its modern form, was invented by St. Jerome in the Vulgate. The primary passages that now refer to Lucifer, previously referred to the morning star or venus, as a great deal of emphasis was placed by Jewish redactors of the original text to blot out worshippers of Asherah and destroy the priestesses that threatened their patriarchal intentions. Jerome was guided by his upbringing under the tutelage of St. Augustine, who was a reformed manichean pagan. Manicheanism is highly dualistic, and it was difficult for Augustine to reconcile almighty god without a supreme adversary - this was the basis for St. Jerome's weird translation. Luther, when translating the bible into German, correctly used morning star, which makes the bizarre latin translation all the more glaring.

Similarly, hell often referred to an actual place (Gehanna) and was metaphorical, at best. More to the point, many passages in the bible that refer to the devil or evil or hell, often are incorrectly translated - the more appropriate translation is "the devil inside you" or "the evil in us all" or some variant of that nature.

As for the genesis mythology, much of it is heavily influenced by the Epic of Gligamesh, particularly the inclusion of leviathan (the serpent) and the flood. Numerous references to polytheistic divinity in the original hebrew - all from the pre-jewish ugaritic religions that existed in canaan before the hebrew genocidal campaigns - are further evidence that much of the oral tradition prior to the torah's construction was, at a minimum, influenced by ugaritic mythos, if not blatantly stolen.

Frank T. de Angelis has a great book on both of these topics, if you can get past his ego-fueled writing and clumsy prose.

One of the better analyses of Yahweh vs. Asherah and the evolution of jewish cutlure from matriarchal polytheism to patriarchal monotheism is Twilight of the Gods.

There are others, but I can't remember them off the top of my head.

 

If god can change what goes on in the world, why is it such a ****hole? God would have to be such a douche to let all the **** that happens to innocent people happen. If there is a god, i dont think he lays his hand on the world. I still havent heard an answer to this

 

You got to have the bad to have the good. Life is life. Quit being such a baby.

Was the universe messed up before the evolution of people?

 

God gave us free will buddy. If we did not have free will, there would not be a "judgement day" as such since it would be redundant.