Good, then I don't see any disagreement here . Although, I do think most people have a "favorite" gospel, or two. I really like Mark and Luke..., think Matthew is ok, and dislike John... and out of the gospels, enjoy First John... but dislike Paul and Romans. What are your favorites ?
you dislike romans?? I LOVE Romans!! I really like Paul...he tries so hard to make simple things that aren't simple...and he can't do it!! But he's trying soooo hard, and you can see that. I really like that. my favorite books are in the OT, though...Ecclesiasties and Psalms in particular. Psalms is so relateable (is that a word?) to me! i love the first chapter of John... actually just finished reading Mark again the other day...love that book too. tacoma park -- i can't believe i'm even gonna ask...but what do you mean???
I find Paul too sexist, anti-sex, and anti-human. I am a "classical" Protestant in that I believe that belief is a priori to action, concerning Christianity... but I think Paul went too far with it. Paul had a little too much of the "radical convert" in him, for me. And he was far too egotistical. Some of his writings were those of a braggart. I can see his appeal though, in that he made Christianity very accessible. Many in the early churhc, including Peter, opposed ministry to the gentiles. Paul did not... I think the spirit of inclusion has to be admired. EDIT: Incidentally Max, I'd like to mention that I enjoy your non-judgemental approach to the issue. It's always a pleasure to argue theology with you.
thank you, haven...that's really kind of you to say that. you're right on the opposition to preaching to Gentiles issue. I'm so thankful he won out on that, or I might be out of luck! of course, if you believe in predestination, you know that really can't be true!!! but let's don't start that conversation!!! Paul won the argument using the words of Christ...I'm thankful!!!
Most scholars believe the gospels were written closer to 50 years after Christ's death and there is considerable debate over just exactly who wrote them - if they were written from notes of the apostels, transcribed by memory, etc. The only documents today that date near the actual time of Jesus life are the Gnostic gospels which were discovered near the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Most scholars date them to 40 to 50 AD, just about 10 to 20 years after the death of Jesus. They are pretty fascinating. They are also quite different from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in terms of the imagery used and quotes attributed to Jesus.
I am Pentacostal so we are always in "The End Times" Alot of my friends try to put Jesus Christ and the Bible in a box and try and judge them by todays worldly standards which in my opinion is impossible. I do believe that events in the Bible are unfolding before our eyes although we cannot judge the time table Jesus has laid out for his plan. The "End Times" could take thousands or millions of years as Jesus`s concept of time is nowhere close to ours. I believe the bottom line is FAITH and you can either believe in the Bible or try and pick it apart. My favorite book is the creation of the new Church in ACTS. Favorite passage is ACTS 2:38
mr_gootan: Now, now. No need to get snotty just because I was brought up in an aggressively agnostic household. I never said they were lying at *all*. I said they were extremely devout. Of course most of them believed in what they were doing. But in order to save all the souls they wanted to save - and in order to stop people going off and believing other things and becoming "heretics" - I think they employed a lot of different strategies. One of them was writing prophecies of doom, which we're all sadly still arguing about.
Not all "prophecies of doom" come from the New Testament...many come out of the Jewish tradition and out of Islam as well. Those religions do not believe in saved souls in the way Christianity does...they do not heed an active call to witness to others about their god. Read Isaiah...there's lots of doom and gloom there. Oh...and the record for fulfilled prophecy is pretty strong...you might do a search for it on this website...someone pointed it out a while back and itemized it. Pretty interesting.
Sorry, these are impossible statistics. Keep in mind that these would be Eurocentric counts if taken from primary sources and very unreliable if guesstimated. Remember that for most of these 16oo years, "scholars" believed that there were all sorts of disfigured people on the periphery of the globe, that a great deal of the Americas, Asia, Australia, and Africa did not exist, etc... 200 years to 1850 AD -- 1.3 billion 100 years to 1950 AD -- 2.5 billion Even these raise some serious issues, as JayZ pointed out. gr8-1, The original "millenial end time" was around 820, ifI remember correctly. It was then altered to 1000 by a few (the Spanish really liked it since they were battling with Muslims) and after was converted to every hundred years. There were pretty big predictions and cult gatherings that we have on record for the 1900 turn. There was one notable prophet of doom (I think he was British) who became very popular and worked a great many peope up...when things passed with no events, his followers turned on him and burned him alive. dimsie, Actually, it appears that Christianity's biggest "marketing" tactic was emphasizing Christ's miracles. Since Christianity was competing with all of the other mystery cults and their prophets, Christians had to prove theirs better and were really the most aggressive in literature and visual imagery.
I think this is , or is at least getting more, well documented. Such as the positioning of the Christmas season around the winter solstice, I believe, to get converters from those following that "religion." You have to wonder why so many major Christian holidays take place during other (or what were) other religion holidays. Coincidence?
MadMax: Not to repeat myself, but I believe my first post on this subject said: So we agree! Rimmy: yeah, miracles are more fun and more distinctive. But it's hard to deny that a lot of Christian doctrine was (and is) based on fear of being "left behind". Or, you know, of having your eyes and genitals bleed of their own accord.
Actually it's easy to deny, because most people accept Jesus Christ in order to "escape going to Hell". And as they mature, they don't focus so much on "where they should have been", but instead on "where they will be".
I smell miscommunication … It's true that the fire and brimstone approach has been a common one. It's not one I like because I think encourages a sort of mindless conformism. I think a better way to communicate what it's about is to focus on living in the spirit. This doesn't mean checking off your X number of good deeds for the day or keeping a score card to see if you've kept to "the law," or scolding others. It means living in the spirit of Christ, with love and compassion and care for your fellow man (and woman) etc. Faith, hope and love, basically. 1 Corinthians 13 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as am fully known. 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. When people see this spirit in you they often begin to question what it's about and to explore that relationship with the spirit of God within themselves. They may never even talk to you, but the message is transferred nonetheless. The imperfections that we all have, the genuine foibles, follies and flat out f*** ups often strengthen this message, ironically. They show, IMO, that Christ is for the imperfect, but inspite of our weaknesses, we can still live in a spirit of love. That's how it worked for me when I was on the other side anyway. ___________ Post 444. 444 was a pretty good Dixie Dregs song IIRC. Pardon the pointless interjection. Carry on.
We have someone screaming "It's the end of the world" every year. If the end of the world came because of famine, nuclear weapons use, and war, wouldn't the world have ended in the early 1900s with World War I or World War II? As bad as things are now those times were FAR worse, with a screwed up economy and everything.
Not a problem. Since you didn't specify what exactly confused you, I have start with this... The Christian doctrine addresses the perfection of God (not by our standards, but His standards). Thus He is perfectly holy, perfectly just, and perfectly loving. Because He is holy, He can only allow that which is holy to be with Him. For us to be considered holy (on our own merit), we must be found faultless based on the 10 commandments that he provided through Moses. If we are at fault, we are separated from Him due to His justice. Because He is love, He sent His son Jesus Christ to be born as a man, live a faultless life, and pay the price for our faults through His sacrifice and separation. Because He is God, Jesus Christ overcame separation through His resurrection. Just being "left behind" falls way short of what will happen once you die. The end result for everyone is to be either with God, or separate from God. Most people are concerned with results.
