1)Apparently asking about MadMax's quote in comparison to what is in Genesis isn't worth responding to///silly. 2)All of the above. 3)Because it hurt.
Max, I know you care... The constant struggle that Jesus endured on earth is mind-boggling to me. As a human, he felt every temptation, the insecurity, the anxiety we experience. As a human, he responded perfectly by praying and studying the scriptures. As a human, he had fears. Fears for his own death, but his faith in God was so strong, he succomb to the will of God. But, at the same time, he was God incarnate. My brain hurts. Not to start a discussion on the theories of atonement, but if the wages of sin are death, and Jesus died as a ransom for everyone, the pain of that cruxificition would have been exponentially greater than the 2 criminals he was with. Again, thats one theory, but thats amazing to me.
I can talk about the person of Jesus being man and God at once. Ask me to relate that to the Father and my brain hurts like yours. I used to spend a great deal of time concerning myself with these theological issues that have divided the Church on razor-thin layers....I just don't care so much anymore about all that. More concerned with what it means to live out faith...to be who God would have me be. That's much more challenging to me...and I can get to something there....I've taken positions on both sides of a lot of the ever-raging theological questions over the course of my life...so I have difficulty getting anywhere with that.
I don't really get what you want to know is the problem, therefore I thought you were just pulling one of those "I'm going to ask a silly question just to irritate a Christian" that others in this forum have done.
This is true. I am unfair to Paul. A lot of what has taken place thanks to his writings is really not his fault per say. Frankly, I don't think Paul thought that any of his letters were scripture, and nor did the recipients. That's a terribly important thing to take into account - especially given the emphasis placed on those writings from around the time of nicea onwards. For every numbered point you've made in this thread, max, a number of caveats and/or counterpoints could be made. This is not by any means an indictment on their validity - but rather a method by which one could come the conclusion that much of what is in the bible requires far more than the all-too conveniant ignorance of "literal truth". For example, look at 2 Peter, which most certainly was not really written by Peter, and which borrows heavily from Jude, but modifies it considerably, and potentially borrows from other non-canonical works such as the Maccabees. Moreover, I would question why this book, which Origen was questioning the validity of well before nicea, was accepted and not others. Perhaps it's because of this gem? Again - this is not a statement of fact or even a "good" argument. It's an issue of validity that is subjective inherently. I tend towards my previous assertion - which you did not respond too directly.
...agreed. Once I got comfortable with so many of my prayers being "I'm not really sure what the answer is, so I'll hang up and listen", it was a lot easier to live the life that God was leading me into.
I'd also take serious issue with this statement. There is an ENORMOUS difference between gnosticism and conventional christianity. Sure, they may share the same stories, but they view the concept of faith and belief completely differently.
Though irreverent to some, this scene in Monty Python speaks volumes on how word-of-mouth transmittal and transcriptions can deviate from reality. Grizzled touched on this earlier. On top of being pure genius on many levels, this scene is downright hilarious. YIKES-edit-NSFW for language <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XiDmMBIyfsU&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XiDmMBIyfsU&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I agree with your statement...but I don't believe gnosticism was nearly as influential in the early Church as it's been made out to be in the last 20 years or so. On the Arian Controversy at Nicea...weren't there like 4 people who voted the other way??
1) The deck was somewhat loaded already by that point. 2) Arianism is not the same as gnosticism. I don't think I've ever seen Arius referred to as a gnostic.
1. agreed 2. agreed I wasn't trying to be deceptive to mathloom in my responses to him. I'm not trying to hide anything from him. Or anyone else. And I'm not trying to "prove up" God. I think there is more to Jesus than gnositicism suggests...I think the Hellenistic tendency to make heaven and hell (up there and down there) the central focus of Christianity is off base from what I understand of Jesus.
Agreed. Twas not my intent to imply that! I'm somewhat confused - are you arguing that gnosticism focused on heaven and hell? I'd argue that backward.
Great stuff Max. Really getting to the core of the issues here. Some more comments: 1) Jesus PBUH was implying that people are missing the point not that Moses PBUH missed the point, right? 2) Mmmmm I just want to make sure I completely understood this part. Did you mean that Jesus PBUH sacrificed himself to replace animal sacrifice from Mosaic Law? 3) Paul ultimately writes that we are incapable of keeping the law or that keeping the law won't get you into heaven? I ask this because it occurs to me that keeping the Law automatically requires that you have faith in God in your heart, so keeping the Law would suffice. Was it not a foregone conclusion that God would judge you on effort rather than a simple checklist for compliance with the Law? 4) It seems to me that the paragraphs you quoted are in fact stating that the Law remains as is. I was also reading on another website yesterday that there's a passage where someone asks Jesus PBUH how to have eternal life and Jesus PBUH makes him recite the Law and then Jesus PBUH basically says "that's your answer". To tie this all in in one point, I remain a bit baffled that following the Law of Abraham till Moses PBUT is not fundamental to Christianity (excluding the degenerated practices that took form after each one's passing). I think however that it is agreed that Jesus PBUH brought a new covenant. Did the Council of Nicaea determine all things that Jesus PBUH said and discussed or just the new stuff? Also, there were definitely people who wrote down what Jesus PBUH said as he spoke or on the same day right? Jesus PBUH's departure was not even known to Jesus PBUH, so was everyone caught off guard by it? Did they expect him to be with them eternally? (though I'm fairly certain there is a passage in the Bible where he states that Jesus PBUH's time on earth would end at some point).
Forgot to include in my last post.. and this is an open question to all I guess.. What EXACTLY was the role of Constantine at the Council of Nicaea and he did he convert before or after? When did he convert (assuming Council was 325AD)? I've looked up a host of sources on the internet and here seems to be rampant speculation around those questions. I can't seem to put my finger on what the popular opinion is... I'm also weary that he ordered everything non-cannonical post Nicaean Council to be burned. I would imagine that it is possible he tried to influence history in a way which shows him to be a Christian much earlier which gave birth to the different views regarding the actual conversion date.
1. I think that's right 2. I don't believe that was the aim...but that was the byproduct. 3. No...it was not a foregone conclusion. When you have a chance, read up on the Pharisees. Which leads me to a cool point...the story of the Good Samaritan...do you know it?? If you don't, read it first....and then consider that...the reason the priest would not go to help the half-dead man was for fear that he might actually be dead. Jewish law suggests that if you touch a dead person, you become unclean in the eyes of God. The Samaritan brushes that off and goes to help the man...and goes even further to take care of him. Jesus points to this as being the response we should have...out of heart...out of self-sacrifice as opposed to rigid adherence to the letter of the law. 4. Lots of questions here....the Law remains...but what Paul suggests is that none of us can live to it...that we need mercy. And that we find that in Christ. I know Christians who do try to keep Jewish law. There are groups of believers who do that. The best illustration of this whole point I think was when Paul was talking about eating food that had been sacrificed to idols. Obviously, Jewish law would have strictly forbidden that....Pauls says (paraphrase): there's nothing signficant about those idols to begin with. The question is whether it causes you or someone else to stumble in their relationship with God...if it does, then dont' do it. But you're free to do it, because idols are worthless....and if your heart is set on God, it doesn't matter what you eat. You've heard us talk a lot (especially me and rhad) about different flavors of Christianity....I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that there was so much freedom inherent in Christ's message...which leaves "religion" to plug in what's important and what's not on a daily basis. I'm unaware of people writing down Jesus' words as he was saying them. I don't believe paper or ink were that accessible...nor were they cheap, and Jesus was poor. As to his departure...I forget what the disciples knew of it...certainly he had told them he would be leaving, but he told them a lot of things they didn't understand.
I think he converted before the Council came together....because I think I remember reading he made a grand entrance. I'm with you on being weary about what he burned...but we have so many different books today with so many different ideas about Jesus that were circulating, I don't think you'd miss the point that there were lots of different thoughts about him.
Correct. Exactly! That is one of the main distinctions between gnosticism and traditional christianity.
