Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,912 Year: 4,169/9,624 Month: 1,040/974 Week: 367/286 Day: 10/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Gospel, Christians and Acts
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4400 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 1 of 36 (492845)
01-03-2009 9:15 AM


A lot of energy is spent by Christians trying to tell one another what a real christian is. Chances are, this is not a new phenomenon - lol. However, it is eerily similar to political mouthpieces trying to say who really represents the beliefs of one party or another.
Were you to ask people 'What does it mean to be a christian?' or 'What are the minimal requirements for someone to qualify as a christian?', you could get any number of responses. Some common essential properties of being a Christian you might hear are ...
A. Believes the Bible (Or some variation on in what way someone 'Believes the Bible.')
B. Goes to Church (For Catholics, we could enlarge this to include certain practices like eating fish on Fridays, etc.)
C. Believes "Jesus died for my sins."
D. Believes Jesus was/is God
E. Believes only Christians go to Heaven
F. Believes "You cannot make it to Heaven on your own."
G. Believes in the Resurrection
H. Is a member of my denomination
I. Believes God created the world in 6 days
What answer would people you know give ?
It seems to us that most, if not all, the above have serious problems. For example, "E is self-referential ... saying a christian is someone who believes only Christians go to Heaven does nothing to define who a christian is. If we believed we were Christians and believed we were the only ones going to Heaven, then "E" would apply to us ... yet, by that belief, we have done nothing to explain what it means to be a christian.
lol - many of the above make no sense historically. We have to assume that the early apostles and their churches should count as 'christians', yet they did not have 'The Bible' (indeed, the Church disagreed among itself for centuries as to which books belonged in the bible and which did not), so one could hardly say that a requirement for christianity is that you believe 'The Bible'. Jesus tells us the old testament is most useful if we are willing to acknowledge it is incomplete in nature. Additionally, without the balance infused by the 'enemies' of the israelites, the Words of the prophets, it may become difficult to establish what the Father is doing, and what the children are doing under His disguise.
Similarly, the doctrine of atonement in its current state didn't even exist until the 11th century, and early believers did not have the trinitarian formulas the modern church holds so dear. Indeed, Origen, the most important christian theologian of the 2nd century, would not even be allowed in the church today by that standard.
In addition to historical problems, significant biblical problems stand out from the above list as well. Where do we see early evangelists stressing to non-believers any of these things? If you want to see what makes a Christian a christian, we think you should look at what the early apostles preached to non-christians in an effort to have them join the Faith.
A study of Acts can be rather revealing here. The following chart has been assembled to illustrate what teachings you find in Acts regarding christianity. The book of Acts was chosen because that is the only book where the focus is on 'evangelism' to non-believers and new believers.
Passage
in Acts
Jesus is
Messiah
Jesus
Arose
Jesus
is Lord
Jesus will
Judge All
Repent!Believers go
to Heaven
Heathens
go to Hell
2: 14-41xxx
x

3: 12-26
x
x
x

x


4: 8-12
x
x





5: 30-32
x
x
x




5: 42
x






7: 1-53
x






9: 22
x






10: 34-43
x
x
x
x



13: 16-41
x
x
x

x


14: 14-17



x



17: 2-4
x
x





17: 18-31

x

x
x


18: 5
x






18: 28
x






20: 20-22


x

x


22: 1-21
x
x





26: 1-29
x
x






Note here that "Jesus is Lord" refers to His being Universally elevated to head o' household status (over Heaven and Earth).
Based on the above, the present opinion says that other than emphasizing the Resurrection, the church has rather struck out when it comes to defining who or what a christian is.
It seems, at least if Paul, James, Peter, and Stephen are good sources, that a christian is someone who has chosen to follow Jesus the Christs' practices, repenting of unloving acts that destroy relationships, and believes Jesus is the Christ (as shown by his Resurrection) who has been given power over Heaven and Earth, including the office of a lovingkindness Judge.
While none of the above are things that most Christians may disagree with, they are also unlikely to be the first thing out of their mouths when asked 'What does it mean to be a christian?'
It seems to the present opinion, Christians in general do not like the idea that repentance is an absolute requirement as opposed to a goal. We would further say that merely believing Jesus is the Christ who sits in power over Heaven and Earth would strike many as "too easy," allowing too many fringe groups in. And in particular, the idea that "Christians, and only Christians, go to Heaven" is such a basic tenet to many that seeing it as not a required one just seems odd. The truth is that the word for Hell does not even show up in all of Acts. One wonders what that says about modern day evangelists and missionaries who start off their message with "Do you know where you are going when you die?"
Deep breaths ...
But what do you think? What does it mean to be a christian? Are there any passages you believe suggest there is some aspect fundamental to being a christian that is missing from the message given by the apostles in Acts?
One Love
Faith and Belief or bible Study please (& thank you)
This thread examines christians and bibles - lol
Edited by Bailey, : spelling
Edited by Bailey, : title edit

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, I'm just a fool playing with ideas.
My only intention is to tickle your thinker. Trust nothing I say. Learn for yourself.
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by bluescat48, posted 01-04-2009 8:56 AM Bailey has replied
 Message 4 by John 10:10, posted 01-04-2009 9:04 AM Bailey has replied
 Message 8 by ICANT, posted 01-04-2009 1:58 PM Bailey has replied
 Message 10 by iano, posted 01-04-2009 4:22 PM Bailey has replied
 Message 14 by dwise1, posted 01-04-2009 5:35 PM Bailey has not replied
 Message 35 by Phat, posted 11-25-2012 4:38 PM Bailey has not replied
 Message 36 by Phat, posted 11-25-2012 4:57 PM Bailey has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4400 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 7 of 36 (492927)
01-04-2009 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by John 10:10
01-04-2009 9:04 AM


division/direction
Thank you for the exchange.
If Christians would spend more time being a Christian instead of defining to other Christians what a Christian is, we would have less arguments such as this one.
It appears many people have not been honest about Jesus; we read that He died so that ALL may have Life, and an awesome one that is everliving. We agree that if those before us would have displayed more Love and honesty concerning the Faith and the Good News, there would likely be less need to currently divide the truth from Lies.
If people who claimed the title 'Christian' acted more like jesus, we would likely have less discussions of this nature.
Be thankful in all things good friend.
My simple answer is given by Peter in Acts 2:
Acts 2:38-39 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."
Great passage John. By 'simple', should we suggest it includes succinct and complete directions to join the Son @ the Father's mansion?
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by John 10:10, posted 01-04-2009 9:04 AM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by John 10:10, posted 01-04-2009 5:21 PM Bailey has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4400 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 9 of 36 (492934)
01-04-2009 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Brian
01-04-2009 9:56 AM


He said, she said ...
Thank you for the exchange.
Bri writes:
In my life I think I have met less than a handful of people that I would consider to be Christian.
Very few people that I have met come anywhere near the example that Jesus promotes in the NT, and I tutored many trainee Church of Scotland ministers for 3 years at the university of Glasgow.
In my opinion, there are many more athiests who act more Christlike than those who profess to being a Christian.
Further evidence that such occurence is not an isolated incidence; this may be an epidemic of global proportions - lol
Most of the 'Christians' I have met here at EvC are too filled with hate to be considered Christian. Buz, Iano, Jaywill, Ray, and others simply are not Christians, they have no compassion at all for anyone and are more into gimmicks than Jesus' teachings.
This sounds similiar to Moses, in Numbers, when the Father requests of him to speak to The Rock, so as to bring forth streams of Living Water for the Father's thirsty children. Instead of following the True and Easy Way, the Helper invents his own way; he decides to strike The Rock (twice) and speak to the thirsty children - lol !? Thankfully, The Rock suffered the man's wrath; we suppose letting The Rock absorb the abuse would be better than the man speaking to it and hitting the children gathered. The Helper says basically, You rebels, blah, blah, blah ..., but the ones the Father Loves are not further wounded by him.
We imagined him hitting it once, and wondering wtf water did not come out - lol. Like a caveman, he hits it again; a True reflection of the saddest black art, Religion (doing things ones own way). We are told the Father is faithful to the children, regardless of the man's incompetence, and Water does come forth from The Rock to quench the thirst of those gathered. Thankfully, Moses is unable to deliver the community into the Promised Land and the priviledge is reserved for a more sincere Helper.
Metaphorically, it may be some of us bring forth Water out of The Rock, but like the Chosen Helper Moses, we are unable to deliver those who are gathered unto the Father's mansion; at least 'til the Volunteer Helpers stop hittin' everything and decide to perform as the Father and Son have requested - lol
I still attend church services quite a lot and, because of my job and research interests, I come in to contact with many Christians and within minutes of speaking to almost all of them it is easy to realise that they really are not Christian at all.
Sounds like you gotta lil' bit o' the Holy ghost in ya - lol. As far as wolves in sheeps clothing; same deal on this end, though the behavior appears to be in no way restricted to 'christian' fluffers. We do not shew them away, so they get the crumbs ...
It is pretty well-know that stats say there are around 2 billion Christians in the world today. I would say that this figure is nowhere near the true amount.
You may be correct, but when surmising an estimate, it may be wise to also set aside an allowance for those who are disciples of Jesus and do not flaunt His jewels. That portion may be a larger than Christians expect - lol
We are told in Leviticus 19:18 that:
Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
Then Jesus reinforces this in the NT in Matthew 22:39
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Alright we believe you, we believe you - lol. You have provided very clear precepts to overcoming religious captivity, imho.
If everyone, not only Christians, followed this teaching then life would be much easier for everyone.
Of course this teaching is not unique to Christianity, and other much older faiths promote this too.
It appears to be the revelation of reality. Most through history can evidence the rational behind such ideologies; seems Some have Faith they said 'it' first, while Others have Faith 'it' was never said. Perhaps 'it' Never was said and 'it' has simply Always been - lol.
But how many religious people actually follow this teaching when we see so much bickering within faiths and so much hatred between faiths?
14 ?
Thank God I'm an atheist.
lol - that remains to be seen you sicko
If one cannot trust a 'christian' is what they claim, how can we trust the authenticity of a true 'atheist'?
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : grammar

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, I'm just a fool playing with ideas.
My only intention is to tickle your thinker. Trust nothing I say. Learn for yourself.
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Brian, posted 01-04-2009 9:56 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Brian, posted 01-07-2009 4:31 PM Bailey has replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4400 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 11 of 36 (492937)
01-04-2009 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by bluescat48
01-04-2009 8:56 AM


Not alone
Thanks for the exchange blues.
Blues writes:
Bailey writes:
What answer would people you know give ?
All of them depending on who I was asking.
We are not alone there, though we probably should be.
I know Fundimentalists, Reformists, liberal Christians all who would answer some or all of the questions as yes.
It is a facinating trend, inventing new ways to labor for Jesus, though it does not seem as effective as the one Way used early on in history.
Telling the Truth.
One Love

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, I'm just a fool playing with ideas.
My only intention is to tickle your thinker. Trust nothing I say. Learn for yourself.
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by bluescat48, posted 01-04-2009 8:56 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4400 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 15 of 36 (492946)
01-04-2009 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by ICANT
01-04-2009 1:58 PM


please, stop referring to yourself as a christian
Hi ICANT.
Thanks for the exchange.
ICANT writes:
Weary writes:
But what do you think? What does it mean to be a christian? Are there any passages you believe suggest there is some aspect fundamental to being a christian that is missing from the message given by the apostles in Acts?
Brian gave the definition of a Christian when he said:
Brian writes:
In my opinion, there are many more athiests who act more Christlike than those who profess to being a Christian.
To be a Christian one must be Christ like.
We agree with you guys. This is why we wonder if the place 'hell', that some have great faith in, would gladly welcome unrecognizable 'christians', if also denominations of all other faiths; belief and disbelief alike.
The word Christian appears in the Bible 2 times, Christians appears 1 time. The first time ... It seems this King thought a Christian was special. The second time ... Peter thought they were special.
Sweet nuggets of Truth; nice snag you ol' dog - lol
The most important entry is the disciples which are followers of Christ was called Christians, followrs of Christ in Antioch.
We think you are onto something here.
So they were not self proclaimed Christians.
They were called Christians by the people of Antioch because they were living a life like Christ.
Yes, you are onto the Truth.
It stands to reason that it is better to be called a christian by someone else, than to place the crown upon your own head. Is this why Jesus said to them, Who do you say I Am? We can imagine as many churches folded, and manipulated the seekers, in the early days as will in the latter ones. Yet, the trees that do not produce fruit are simply cut down and thrown into the fire.
So, the earliest christians did not title themselves, or their founded church, with such a sacred name as Jesus the Christ's as most, if not all, modern churches and disciples do. This 'right of passage' appears to be determined by the people within the town, and their perception of the disciples, and their fruit. Like you say, when they recognized Jesus reflection within the disciples, they called a spade a spade.
The spade did not name itself and begin digging - lol
So if your friends and neighbors can't see Christ in your life you ain't a Christian.
Interwebz neighbors and friends count too, right?
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : grammar
Edited by Bailey, : spelling

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, I'm just a fool playing with ideas.
My only intention is to tickle your thinker. Trust nothing I say. Learn for yourself.
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ICANT, posted 01-04-2009 1:58 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4400 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 16 of 36 (493238)
01-07-2009 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by iano
01-04-2009 4:22 PM


When in Rome, be sadomasochistic ...
Thank you for the time and energy iano.
Apologies for the delay ...
iano writes:
weary writes:
The book of Acts was chosen because that is the only book where the focus is on 'evangelism' to non-believers and new believers.
The focus of the book of Acts is more history than it is doctrine. As your table adequately indicates, apart from "Jesus as Messiah" (addressed to the early chapters Jewish audience) and "Jesus saves you from your sin" (addressed to the later chapters Gentile audience) the book of Acts is doctrine-lite.
Indeed, Truly, as light as Jesus' yolk.
Fourteen occurences of Jesus as the Messiah, ten occurences of His Amazing Resurrection, six occurences of His 'Lordship', three occurences of His authority to Discern/Judge, and the five occurences encouraging Repentance appear to provide enough detail to learn about the Love of the Father and Son, and Spirit of Love. It seems to generously cover the fundamentals of Jesus' Way, and provide easy directions. That it does not mention 'hell' even once, truly causes it to reflect Jesus nature, He Who gave Himself a ransom for All (to be testified in due time).
Is it better to Love our neighbor for a conditional reward (like Paul in Romans - Heaven/hell, maso/sado), or unconditionally (like disciples in Acts - Agape Love)?
TIA
Jesus writes:
Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.
“Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS.
For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.
iano writes:
One only has to skip to the next (doctrinally heavy) book (of Romans) to see what a central protagonist of the book of Acts has to say about mans position before God.
This appears reasonable. It is good to note that the man behind the pen was a 'convicted' murderer; not a happy fisherman - lol
Paul, the murderer, appears to have had a very guilty conscience and we do not blame him (for anything, but hope). It seems he encountered much trouble swallowing his portion of forgiveness, yet it appears his previous gainful employment (mutilating people) may have caused that. Should we suppose 'christians' are better off condemning themselves, continually, as Paul did in his 'gospel of bad news'?
iano writes:
He starts out reporting the bad news; that mankind, in toto, is under the wrath of God - which is what makes the good news so eternally good
That is a valid point iano. Paul does not simply report the Gospel that Jesus and his merry men originally spoke. Many say this troubled other disciples; we imagine they could not see Grace through the eyes of a forgiven murderer. They mostly murdered fish; not men. In Acts, the disciples report the Father's Good News for All and many appear to receive the Words that are spoken properly. In Romans, Paul reports bad news; his difficulty in accepting what the Father, the Son, and the Spirit of Agape Love have prepared for All.
Perhaps the jews/catholics/protestants receive the sadomasochistic heterodox 'gospel of guilt' through Paul not being able to fully imagine and accept Grace ... is this the 'thorn in his side', which must remain, that he refers to?
TIA
It is stretching credibility to suppose that a doctrinally more detailed account of Pauls historical journeys in Acts wouldn't include him stressing this very same point to his audience.
Which point is that? Sado/maso is 'the way' - lol? We think Paul's writing's efficiently serve those who come to the Faith openly; yet, primarily the ones who cannot seem to cleave unto the Forgiveness that has been Gifted unto them.
A case of absence of evidence not at all indicating evidence of absence?
We do not imagine Paul's conscience absent from reality; just Acts.
Do you feel if a disposed soul, open to repentance and Love, was given the book of Acts, alone, they could be 'saved'?
One Love

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, I'm just a fool playing with ideas.
My only intention is to tickle your thinker. Trust nothing I say. Learn for yourself.
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by iano, posted 01-04-2009 4:22 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by iano, posted 01-08-2009 5:21 AM Bailey has replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4400 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 18 of 36 (493251)
01-07-2009 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Brian
01-07-2009 4:31 PM


diss,earn,mint
Hi & thanks for the exchange Bri,
Bri writes:
weary writes:
If one cannot trust a 'christian' is what they claim, how can we trust the authenticity of a true 'atheist'?
Because atheists have far higher moral standards than Christians.
lol - touche mista pussycat. Yet, do high moral standards pardon suspicion?
We may do well to lend the benefit of the doubt to only those who, altogether, refrain from accusations; there has got to be at least One - lol. In the meantime, we are sure to be discerned by the ones the Father Loves, when we decide to discern the ones the Father Loves. Or more simply, we are sure to be discerned (by others), when we decide to discern others; Reality will testify to that, fo sho'.
One Love

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Brian, posted 01-07-2009 4:31 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Brian, posted 01-07-2009 5:36 PM Bailey has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4400 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 21 of 36 (493442)
01-08-2009 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by iano
01-08-2009 5:21 AM


.. who's that babies daddy ..
Thanks for your time iano.
Please forgive us ...
iano writes:
weary writes:
The book of Acts was chosen because that is the only book where the focus is on 'evangelism' to non-believers and new believers..
..It seems to generously cover the fundamentals of Jesus' Way, and provide easy directions. That it does not mention 'hell' even once, truly causes it to reflect Jesus nature, He Who gave Himself a ransom for All (to be testified in due time).
Would it not be safe to include the gospels also? There being little doubt that 'evangelism' of non-believers was one of Jesus central activities.
All of the Father's Words are 'good'; they are all even better when one accepts that the serpent deceived them in the Beginning and he is currently working overtime.
Were we to include that material, we would find teaching on "Hell" littering the pages.
We heard our Hope for the Good News is found within Christs' Resurrection? According to even Paul, faith or an imagination of Jesus' belief in 'hell' is in no way required for Forgiveness, Resurrection, or Survival ...
If you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that the Father raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
If possible, please provide a chapter and verse where the Anchor expresses ones Hope of Survival and Resurrection lay in maintaining a healthy fear of death & torment; we were unable to locate it - lol.
Indeed Jesus is the key figure to study if teaching on "Hell" is your topic of interest.
lol - we are not interested; an opportunity to join hellfire was not Jesus' Good News. Hardly good friend; religion, in harmony with systematic theology, has prepared the abundance of 'evidence'. One can gleam much more 'hell' literature from religious entities, than they can from the Faithful and True Witness.
For the longest time, the way to understand christianity was to read the scripture and to digest its Wisdom. As it did then, it still requires hard work, diligence, a mature faith, an intelligent mind, strong reading abilities, and a willingness to learn about a culture from a different time and place. On top of all that, one needs an extraordinary imagination. We feel this type faith is to be admired, revered, and loved because it shows a true and pure faith that genuinely desires to know the Father of Life.
Culture, if that is its real name, appears to have promoted the complete opposite of diligence in many aspects of our lives. It is not news, we are sure, when we identify the trend of many cultures that are enthralled with instant gratification as seen in movies, the internet, television, fast food, video games, and music, while other activities that require time and work are neglected, such as reading, playing sports, and spending time with family. lol - granted, this is stark contrast to fighting to the death, throwing people to lions, public executions and all sorts of less civilized activities that were previously used to 'pass the time' (whatever that means).
Systematic theology, for instance, does not require an in-depth reading of scripture itself. The very nature of systematic theology is that of a quick-and-dirty view of passages that mention various issues, such as eschatology or baptism, etc. Instead of reading the bible as a historical narrative in the way that it was presented to us in its canonized form, this new systematic way of thinking slices the bible into neat and tidy sections separated by topic. Although when trying to understand a particular issue, one is well served by searching through the scripture to understand what was said about that issue, this new theological perspective does not look at the whole bible as a continuous story that builds upon itself. By doing so, it ignores many valid concepts, while inventing more of its own.
Concepts of any caliber require thinking and a mature mind. They cannot be obtained by merely pointing to shallow arguments, which is precisely what pharisidical religion (which never admits fault) and popular systematic theology advocate.
lol - we have no faith in the success of death/debbil and 'hell'; All our Faith is assigned to Christs' Kingdom of Servants, Resurrection, and Everliving Life.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Is it better to Love our neighbor for a conditional reward (like Paul in Romans - Heaven/hell, maso/sado), or unconditionally (like disciples in Acts - Agape Love)?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by heaven being the conditional reward for loving ones neighbour. Contrary to what you appear to be suggesting, the book of Romans is the place where salvation (or heaven) by faith is detailed. Not by works such as "loving ones neighbour"
We are exceedingly thankful for Paul's intricate testimonies; please do not think otherwise. Thankfully though, faith without works is dead; perhaps the heterodox view that faith alone 'saves' is encouraging religious folk to usher in the emergent laodicean era.
This is how God's children and the devil's children are distinguished. No person who fails to practice righteousness and to love his brother is from God.
We will ask you more simply; do you feel it would be found more pleasing to learn how to love the Father conditionally or unconditionally?
Is it better to teach conditional faith or unconditional faith?
TIA
iano writes:
weary writes:
This appears reasonable. It is good to note that the man behind the pen was a 'convicted' murderer; not a happy fisherman - lol
Given that Jesus equated being angry with a brother, to murder, we must suppose God found it impossible to conjour up anything but murderers to pen his word. It was convicted murders (who happened to be fishermen) who recorded Jesus own words afterall. Unless you want to suppose them never angry with a brother?
You are wise to examine the fullness of Reality as it has been presented. We can perceive it both ways ; one interpretation is spiritually true (witnessed by Jesus) and one maintains physical truth (witnessed in hiStory). It is easy to cause confusion if the two are not differentiated; perhaps we were misunderstood concerning the matter.
lol - it remains, physically, most fished or crunched numbers while Paul murdered people.
People that were completely honest and utterly subservient to their Father, Savior, brothers, neighbors and widows.
I never thought about it that way. All Christians are convicted (of their sinfulness) murderers. Nice pun!
lol - truly ...
The basic premise is that new believers and those open and unaware of the Way do not need to be fed poison in the beginning of their Faith. If one has trouble forgiving themselves or imaging the Father of Life's pardon, Paul's testimony may lend tremendous understanding to Forgiveness' depth and variety.
Yet, none are convicted, unless we adopt the faith in 'the debbil' and his religious tribes who Lie about the truth. Christ came so that ALL may have Life; John assures us the Man of Hope will advocate if we slip (partake in an act of malignant aggression).
It has been written, your sins are forgiven through Him that Loved the Father of Life the most.
Is our hope of Forgiveness established by a guilty conviction or Jesus Resurrection?
TIA
iano writes:
weary writes:
Paul, the murderer, appears to have had a very guilty conscience and we do not blame him (for anything, but hope). It seems he encountered much trouble swallowing his portion of forgiveness, yet it appears his previous gainful employment (mutilating people) may have caused that. Should we suppose 'christians' are better off condemning themselves, continually, as Paul did in his 'gospel of bad news'.
Given Pauls arrival that the wonderous conclusion in Romans 8:1 that; "there is now no condemnation for those that are in Christ", I can't for the life of me see where you are drawing this notion from.
We are not sure which you mean; the conclusion that Paul felt guilty or that many are brainwashed into accepting defunct version's of Paul's testimony, without personally studying it?
Either way, we think the bible is best read with ones own eyes (preferably open).
The less we learn from 'teachers', the better. The Father of Life has employed a Spirit of Love for that purpose.
Jesus writes:
Do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.
iano writes:
Perhaps you could flesh things out by quoting Paul "continually" doing as you say? Say 6 or 7 examples..
lol - this is certainly possible, considering how many times he refers to his chains, captivity, and unworthiness ...
Seriously though, we have no desire to further corrupt Paul's testimony; thankfully, those in captivity to spiritually impotent religious rigidity have served their task efficiently. Please understand, this is in no way personally directed (especially considering your Love for the truth); we are most guilty for not speaking up sooner.
Our Love for Paul, and his conscience, does not end.
iano writes:
weary writes:
That is a valid point iano. Paul does not simply report the Gospel that Jesus and his merry men originally spoke.
You mean the gospel with constant references (from it's central protagonist, Jesus) to being cast out into outer darkness where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth?
Yep - hopefully you do not have faith the Prophet is referring to 'hell'! More of the same inconsistency; there is no 'darkness' within fire - lol. It is not a happy place, with the clenched jaws and tears, but it does not align well at all with 'eternal fire'. 'Great wailing' and 'gnashing of teeth' will certainly occur when Reality is finally declared. We have imagined this scenario; it appears more like a dim funeral parlor than a demon bonfire.
We highly recommend a personal investigation into Love, yet we are fully aware some will preach death; to each their own.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Many say this troubled other disciples; we imagine they could not see Grace through the eyes of a forgiven murderer. They mostly murdered fish; not men.
Manysay rhymes with hearsay.
lol - it is fairly well established. This is not to imply that the Servants of Jesus hated Paul; simply that there was confusion amongst some 'til, between them, discussion took place.
I imagine the one who is forgiven much will have reason to stand more in awe at the wonderous grace of God granted him - than one forgiven less. That would make rational sense. Indeed, so fired up would that person be that they could be expected to be motivated in a way not apparent with the ones who walked with Jesus.
We concede whole heartedly iano...
iano writes:
weary writes:
In Acts, the disciples report the Father's Good News for All and many appear to receive the Words that are spoken properly. In Romans, Paul reports bad news; his difficulty in accepting what the Father, the Son, and the Spirit of Agape Love have prepared for All.
And in the gospel accounts Jesus issued stark warnings and difficult teachings. And many walked away.
This appears unspecifically true. The agnostics and atheists were eating Him up iano; pagans received Him in droves. Many religious jews could not give up the sadomasochistic ways that mainstream judaism can be accredited with culturally ingraining within them. Reasonably, when some accepted Christ, they modified His Word. The Dutch were the first of the modern Israelitish nations to carry the Babylonish/Roman brand of Christianity to other nations that they colonized, seeking raw materials and markets for their manufactured goods. They in turn were followed on the world stage by the French and then the British. In our day, it is Americans who are doing the bulk of the influencing.
The Protestant Reformation burst from Catholicism, and it was the same Catholic Church that all the reformers thought of as the true church gone corrupt. But the truth of the matter is that the Catholic Church was NEVER the true church, and the Protestant Reformation did not re-establish the 'true religion'. The Catholic Church is exactly what it has always publicly called itself: the Roman Catholic (Universal) Church. lol - it stands identified by its own words! It is not the Christian church, but the Roman Universal Church. It is a syncretistic religion, having its roots in Babylon. It is not the church of the Author and Father of Life.
The Protestant Reformation simply established more forms of the Roman Catholic Church. It established denominations of false religion masquerading as the true religion. The Reformation simply reformed the Roman Universal Church into many varieties without a Pope. They altered ceremonial requirements and modified many of the more obvious corruptions. People then proceeded to spread these hybrid religions all over the world in their colonization of other areas. They were better than the Roman Universal variety, but they still were not of the truth.
One good thing that the 'protestant reformation' did produce was to release many people from a great deal of religious confusion and political slavery. But today, protestantism has lost its cutting edge. In many cases, it is nothing more than entertaining paganism. In other cases, it is a Sunday-morning fraternal organization.
Now consider this: Was The Father involved in this? Absolutely, He was! He is the sovereign, omnipotent, King of Kings. He did not raise up these churches, but He permitted them to form. He could have stopped it at any time, but it was within His purpose to allow these things to occur and to build toward the beginning of TRUE LIFE. The Father governs all of His creation, and something of this magnitude could not have happened without His oversight. If He has oversight, and it happened without Him giving permission for it to occur, then He is not sovereign! Somebody put one over on Him!
lol - but nobody puts anything over on the Lion of the Tribe of Judah !!!
Israel's modern Christianity makes doctrine of little or no importance, leaving everyone free to do what is right in his own eyes. In the true church, it will produce the same tolerant non-judgmental "just do your own thing," politically correct, multicultural way of deism that we so commonly see accepted in Religious countries, and faith in trusting the Way, the Truth, and the Light to govern His creation vanishes. People in the church find justification for idolatry, for Sabbath-breaking, for murder, lying, stealing, just as the so-called "Christian" nation finds justification for those things.
The people serving the Prince of Peace making war? It was no accident that James writes in James 4:1, "From whence come wars. . . ."
Did you ever hear of Jesus using any of those methods; murder, lying, stealing, making war, committing adultery, breaking the Sabbath ” to solve His problems? He said, "I always do the will of My Father." He did not resort to those things, because they are not Christian, even though He was surrounded by people (the jews) who ostensibly were God's people and ostensibly keeping the commandments.
The gospels say that "He trusted no man," and He kept Himself separate from them spiritually even though He was among them constantly, healing, teaching, and receiving abuse and persecution because He was peculiar to them and a threat. How did He threaten them? By making them face up to their justifications, their lies to themselves.
Many, many, many come across much difficulty with the acceptance, and therefore perception, of an unconditional ALL LOVING, supreme entity (able to maintain justice and righteousness) that would offer every man a chance at their winning lotto numbers.
'Churchians' are of this breed of spirit, and so, become much the same; they will not believe the Father of Life offers a 'wicked' Samaritan the same wages, considering all they have 'been taught about god'.
If anyone is to see one, we highly recommend giving them a hug ...
According to this rational of yours we might suppose the disciples in possession of a better gospel than Christ himself.
The first will come last, and the last will be first good friend.
Consider this iano: no one knew that the Great Rabbi was going to die until He was taken away (see John 20:9 and Luke 24:20-21), and for the vast majority of His ministry, hardly anyone even knew He was the Messiah. Yet, the bible says He preached "the Gospel."
What Gospel did He preach if it did not include anything about His death?
lol - not a trick question.
Which is why it might be worth reflecting on your opening premise regarding Acts.
We agree the endeavor is worthwhile; that is why we are thankful the topic was promoted.
iano writes:
weary writes:
Perhaps the jews/catholics/protestants receive the sadomasochistic heterodox 'gospel of guilt' through Paul not being able to fully imagine and accept Grace ... is this the 'thorn in his side', which must remain, that he refers to?
After you construct a case for the gospel of guilt asserted throughout this post we can come back and look at this summing up of yours to see how well it reflects the situation.
You stated Paul delivered 'the bad news', which we refer to as the 'gospel of guilt' (tongue in cheek). We will not construct a case for anything other than the ACTUAL Gospel; hopefully we can discuss that one - lol.
Thank you for the feedback, as we are better aware that our position is being viewed through a glass darkly. We do not mean Paul, personally, propogated a 'gospel of guilt'; perhaps like you, we feel Paul was a genuine black sheep, doing the best he could to have Faith in Reality. We love that guy ...
Paul did not likely birth his one of a kind testimony intentionally for the jews/catholics/protestants to molest.
They simply performed as Religion always has; they took the Truth of the Father's Words and, by subtlety, formed from it a mass deception; the sadomasochistic heterodox 'gospel of guilt' that pervades modern (unfullfilled) reality.
And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many
The deceit being propagated by the modern church is all but evident to anyone willing to see.
No one with their wits about them would deny unmolested Reality; yet the ones 'with their wits' clearly see the hypocrisy within the 'true church'. It has caused them ill ...
And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
Be thankful for the religious/atheist spirit; such faith is expediting the Beginning of Life.
The one that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
If this was not the case, on that day, there may likely be no 'christians' for the Servant to turn away (whether they bring forth Living Water, or otherwise).
Not everyone who says to Me, ”Lord, Lord,’ will enter the Father's Mansion, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. “Many will say to Me on that day, ”Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ”I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’
If you can see, a form of lawlessness is speaking hateful thoughts as teachings. There are many fine examples, but our favorite filthy Lie is, 'god will not love you if blah, blah, blah (fill in the blank)' or 'you WILL go to 'hell', if blah, blah, blah (fill in the blank)'. These may, both equally, stand together as the most 'evil' acts of destructive malignant aggression that a person can propagate. lol - it is no wonder such 'evangelic' techniques fail outside the prison ministries!
It shall prove difficult to promote attempts towards making straight the Path, or cause it further detour, as such attempts are usually perceived as one in the same. As you know, Jesus began the former and was mutilated by religious people and politicians. To those who only believe the Father and Son and Spirit of Love ...
It is our hope, by faith and determination, ALL may rightfully discern that which the Father has prepared.
If anybody made it through that, thank you ...
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : grammar
Edited by Bailey, : grammar

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, I'm just a fool playing with ideas.
My only intention is to tickle your thinker. Trust nothing I say. Learn for yourself.
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by iano, posted 01-08-2009 5:21 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Brian, posted 01-09-2009 4:14 AM Bailey has not replied
 Message 23 by iano, posted 01-09-2009 1:02 PM Bailey has replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4400 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 24 of 36 (514077)
07-03-2009 2:28 PM


ATTENTION: RevCrossHugger & friends ...
Thanks for the exchange rch.
Hope things are well ...
I was thinking, perhaps on behalf of the members and viewers of EvC, as well as myself, and even yourself too, that you may be interested in sharing how you have come to describe to others what being a 'Red Letter Christian' is all about.
What is it, specifically, that actually justifies the identification of a Christian in general? There are some basic ideas formulated within Message 1 that you may be able to work off, if interested. Perhaps you will find yourself in your element if you decide to pursue this conversation.
If you check that message, you'll find the lil' bit below ...
quote:
Were you to ask people 'What does it mean to be a christian?' or 'What are the minimal requirements for someone to qualify as a christian?', you could get any number of responses. Some common essential properties of being a Christian you might hear are ...
A. Believes the Bible (Or some variation on in what way someone 'Believes the Bible.')
B. Goes to Church (For Catholics, we could enlarge this to include certain practices like eating fish on Fridays, etc.)
C. Believes "Jesus died for my sins."
D. Believes Jesus was/is God
E. Believes only Christians go to Heaven
F. Believes "You cannot make it to Heaven on your own."
G. Believes in the Resurrection
H. Is a member of my denomination
I. Believes God created the world in 6 days
Again, this is to stimulate perspective and dialogue. My question to you is, what answer would you give people at your chuch if asked, 'What does it mean to be a christian?' or 'What are the minimal requirements for someone to qualify as a christian?'.
This ol' reference table may also shed some light on how effective the many various church doctrines seem to have been throughout the past couple millenium (please note that 'Jesus is Lord' refers to His being Universally elevated to head o' household status (over Heaven and Earth)).
Passage
in Acts
Jesus is
Messiah
Jesus
Arose
Jesus
is Lord
Jesus will
Judge All
Repent!Believers go
to Heaven
Heathens
go to Hell
2: 14-41xxx
x

3: 12-26
x
x
x

x


4: 8-12
x
x





5: 30-32
x
x
x




5: 42
x






7: 1-53
x






9: 22
x






10: 34-43
x
x
x
x



13: 16-41
x
x
x

x


14: 14-17



x



17: 2-4
x
x





17: 18-31

x

x
x


18: 5
x






18: 28
x






20: 20-22


x

x


22: 1-21
x
x





26: 1-29
x
x






Based on the above, the present opinion says that other than emphasizing the Resurrection, the church has, perhaps, rather struck out when it comes to defining who or what a christian is. After all, the truth is that the word for 'hell' does not even show up in all of Acts. Now I'm not suggesting that you do the following, but One wonders what that says about modern day evangelists and missionaries who start off their message with 'Do you know where you are going when you die?'. lol - please don't get mad at me ... it's only one opinion. And mine really doesn't matter in the end of things, now does it?
Looking forward ...
One Love

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have condemned the innocent; why trust what I say when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4400 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 26 of 36 (519618)
08-15-2009 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Peg
07-04-2009 2:16 AM


the gospel of Augustine & the doctrines of Levitical Christianity
Thanks for the exchange Peg ...
Hope things have been well.
sista Peg writes:
weary writes:
What is it, specifically, that actually justifies the identification of a Christian in general?
in my opinion, christianity is about Godly devotion.
Interesting approach Peg. I agree that Joshua, as well as his message, are tightly woven to the theme of Godly devotion.
However, christianity, as a religious concept, rarely seems devoted to the Father imho and I am often accompanied by despair as I pray for them ...
Consider, if you will, that the majority of religious traditions righteously adhere to 'Godly devotion', without necessitating the murder of Deity.
While I agree that many who refer to themselves as christians have a form of religion, nullifying the testimony of the Prophets - that the Father desires mercy, not sacrifice - and worshipping the murder of God or His Son, are not items that rank high on my list accomplishments displaying 'devotion to God'.
That is likely one reason that causes me to take cover with atheists, if anyone. While they are racist towards the concept of Deity, they are not trying to convince me that once we find God, he should be murdered. In retrospect, Levitical Christianity seems far more racist towards Deity than Atheism.
However, this seems to stem from ancient dogmas. The early church may have understood the meaning of the 'crucifixion of Christ', but that meaning was apparently crucified with Joshua and all those who were murdered on account of his testimony. So I ask - why did Joshua refuse aggressive defense and allow himself to be murdered on a torture stake and what does this tell us about the 'plan of salvation' according to Christian theology?
According to the theologian Augustine and the theologians of the church in later centuries who considered him 'the father of Christian theology', Joshua was murdered to be an atonement sacrifice to pay for the sins of humanity, following the doctrines laid out in books like Leviticus in the ToRaH, commonly referred to as the Law of Moses. Every sectarian branch of Levitical Christianity then become Augustine's child, who are paternally Catholic in nature.
By partaking of this sacrifice, one is ritually 'washed in the blood of the lamb' and then 'imputed' the 'perfection of Christ'. The price was fully paid by completely and perfectly fulfilling this 'law of Moses' and then suffering the punishment for wrongdoers, thus satisfying the demands of justice. I think that's close, right?
Now, as an avid admirer of the ToRaH, the Prophets and the Psalms, this then becomes an extremely peculiar notion. Yirmiyahu stated that the Father did not tell those people to bring sacrifices and offerings when they came out of Egypt, but that rather these sacrificing and blood atonement laws were forged by the Levite priests of the Yirusalem temple.
This evolved doctrine of Joshua as a Levite animal sacrifice did not orginate with the prophets of Yisrael or with the gospels, but rather with theologians of the church, like Augustine. This doctrine is not mentioned in the gospels. There is at least one tradition that all four gospels we presently possess agree upon and that is ...
Joshua the Anointed One was murdered by way of crucifixion to preserve a system of religious dogmatism.
Joshua's chief persecutors, those who relentlessly pursued him to his death, his prosecutors, his accusers, and his those who were determined to crucify the Christ - the Levitical priesthood, were the highest religious authorities of his day.
It should, then, not come as a surprise that Levites were indeed the first practitioners to request the 'blood of the lamb' be poured over them ...
quote:
Matthew 27:25
In reply all the people said, Let his blood be on us and on our children!
This is the doctrine that establishes one as a christian - trust me when I tell you, one will not be welcomed within christian circles for very long without confessing that Joshua was a neccessary Levitical animal sacrifice. And so, this is what is required to truly make a christian, Christian. Do any disagree?
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Peg, posted 07-04-2009 2:16 AM Peg has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4400 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 27 of 36 (519656)
08-15-2009 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by iano
01-09-2009 1:02 PM


Joshua's Gehinom & Dante's Hellfire
Thanks for the exchange Iano ...
Long time - hope all is well ...
iano writes:
weary writes:
We heard our Hope for the Good News is found within Christs' Resurrection ...
If possible, please provide a chapter and verse where the Anchor expresses ones Hope of Survival and Resurrection lay in maintaining a healthy fear of death & torment; we were unable to locate it - lol
I'm not suggesting that a belief in Hell is required in order that one be saved ...
Yet, you contend that the Catholic invention referred to as 'hell' is a reasonable threat to include in the Gospel - or Good News, of the Kingdom. You contend that Joshua integrated this threat within his Gospel. Now, telling somebody that it's better to amputate their foot than die of an infection is not a threat.
It's a common sense teaching.
And so, I assume you were unable to locate a passage suggesting such a doctrine or belief as Dante and Milton's Hellfire is required within Joshua's Good News. Have you found a biblical passage supporting your position that the Catholic version of 'hell', however fanciful the doctrine, is a reasonable teaching?
lol - or do you still have some tokens left for the 'jesus didit too' bus ?? Without scripture text to back you up, I'd say those tokens have expired.
Iano, honestly ...
Joshua didn't threaten anybody except other religious leaders. Please show me otherwise, so I may concede; I'd even consider verses found in apocrypha.
I'm not even suggesting that belief in Christ's resurrection is required in order that a person be saved
(such a belief arising, I suggest, after one is saved).
I may suggest belief in Joshua's message is much more integral than belief in his historocity or mythology.
I notice you disagree with Paul's one comment? As you say, people have always disagreed about these things.
To be honest, I'm obviously more inclined to agree with you to a variable degree in this instance ...
It is indeed true to say that if you are in a state of belief regarding Jesus' Lordship you will be saved.
Such a belief (like good works) is a marker of a saved one. A consequence of having been saved. I hold.
I like that criteria better then confessing his murder as a necessary Levitical ritual atonement killing.
However, Joshua most always deferred his lordship to the Father and advised his disciples in this way ...
This seems to relate to the reoccuring theme found within the booklet written in John's name, particularly ...
quote:
John 10:30
"[My] Father and I are one."
In John 16:25 we read that Joshua, while speaking through parables and riddles for a season, will soon arrange 'a time ... when [He] will no longer speak ... in obscure figures, but will tell ... plainly about the Father'.
At this point, HaMashiach reveals that 'you will ask in [His] name, and [He] do[es] not say that [He] will ask the Father on your behalf'.
That's right - Joshua will not say that He is going to make requests on behalf of 'jesus groupies'. lol - does that seem a lil' awkward?
It shouldn't, because there is a reason, we are told, that such a request on behalf of Joshua the Anointed One is, apparently, most unnecessary.
You see, the thing is, we're told 'the Father Himself loves you'. Why does the Father love 'you', one may ask?
Easy, 'because you have loved [Joshua] and have believed that [He] came from God'.
No sacrifice involved. Rather, just a bit o' faith on behalf of those who have mercy.
Perhaps, to the point, the disciples believed Joshua 'came from God'.
Note - no disclosure that disciples believed HaMashiach was God.
Certainly, there's no magic or mystery in that.
Perhaps that is why the disciples exclaimed ...
[quote]'Look, now [HaMachiach] [is] speaking plainly and not in obscure figures of speech!
Now we know that [HaMashiach] know[s] everything and do[es] not need anyone to ask [Him] anything.
Because of this we believe that [HaMashiach] [has] come from God.' [/quote]
In this instance, the disciples believed Joshua was The Anointed One ...
Not necessarily because of a virgin birth.
Not necessarily because of a resurrection.
Yet, because they felt this man had all the answers.
Again, no threats or magic or mystery ...
Simply faith in love.
Given the Holy Spirits task of convincing the world of sin, righteousness and judgement
(which, I gather, sums up the essence of what a person need believe in order that they be saved) ...
Am I to consider that the 'Holy Spirit' cannot perform its duty without the assistance of some puny humans? C'mon ...
So then, you say the Holy Spirit may visit you and say I'm guilty, but it is unable to come to me and say it, huh?
Perhaps it is those who participate in threatening others with Hellfire that are the one's who need help ...
It is seeming that way.
... I think it reasonable to include hell in one's gospel.
I think that sort of talk ought be reserved for religious authorities, just as Joshua performed.
You don't think belief of hell is required to be saved, but you think it's reasonable to include ...
Because somebody convinced you that the Holy Spirit is somehow incompetent??
lol - please, be reasonable friend ... looking forward to hearing from you.
One Love
Edited by Bailey, : sp.
Edited by Bailey, : metanonia

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by iano, posted 01-09-2009 1:02 PM iano has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4400 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 28 of 36 (573800)
08-12-2010 7:08 PM


In Regards to Carrying a Cross
This thread was created with the intention of examining the gospel narratives, highlighting the Acts of the Apostles, as well as providing a venue, for any who would like to participate, that could foster general discussion concerning what people may or may not feel it means to be a christian. When we unrobe the christian faith of all its doctrine and dogma, ranging from the age ol' mantra 'Caesar crucifies slaves, but God raises slaves from the dead' to today's most prevalent concepts of atonement which are but a few hundred years old - conjured up by the likes of a catholic attorney as fate would have it, what one is left with is the symbol of the crucifixion.
And so, at the center of the christian faith, once all doctrine and dogma is stripped away and discarded, we see this peculiar symbol of the crucifixion.
Now, it may do us well to note and understand that this symbol takes root in a fertile soil partly enriched by a brutal form of capital punishment. This manner of torturing someone to death was employed by the Roman state to quell revolution and punish dissent. As an example, some may recall a revolt led by Spartacus by about five thousand slaves against Roman authority and power, with the end result being about five thousand gruesome crucifixions along every road leading into Rome; arising from this, we are told, a stench so completely unbearable, perhaps even keeping away the most vigorous vultures.
And make no mistake - this terrifying spectacle was clearly intended as a warning and a fine display of just how ruthlessly Roman imperialists intended to be in the protection of their aristocratic privileges and their dynastic wealth, both dependent as they were, upon the fear and agony of an industrious military machine and the labor of compliant slaves. According to Josephus, we find Herod had John the Baptist executed because he feared that John might become the central force in a revolutionary uprising, and with appeasing discontent and quashing revolution being such a constant preoccupation of Roman imperialism as they were, this led to the creation of one of history's most effective and well trained military forces to dominate and patrol the Roman empire.
Again, without mincing meat, this policy was so ruthlessly enforced that often just the appearance of the Roman legions was enough to crush a revolutionary uprising and inspire an impotent surrender to the Roman military. Therefore, one can know that crucifixion was a method of torturing to death dissenters who practiced civil disobedience or fomented resistance against Roman rule, and this form of gruesome torture was used rather than a simple club to the head for no other reason than to inspire the same fear and terrorism that was also inspired by the Roman Legions.
And, as common sense would have it, this form of detrimental terrorized capital punishment was utilized for the same reason as those Legions, for Rome relied on this level of fear in order to maintain the Imperial Empire and to control the slave population that often outnumbered citizens and performed all the work that generated the massive wealth of the Roman elite.
So, we see the threat this posed was kept in check through the maintenance of an extremely high level of terror. It is because of this that one may note the story of the crucifixion and the resurrection were the symbols of a revolutionary movement that sprang up in ancient Rome, in that the intended function of this symbol was to defeat the terror inspired by the Romans through faith in this symbol of victory over Roman brutality.
It is within this symbolism that the rapid spread of this new faith throughout the Roman empire seems to be most reasonably explained, and it also goes a certain distance towards explaining why the earliest christians consisted only of what one Roman writer referred to as the lowest of the lower classes - yes, even the dregs of society. Only slaves and women were found to join that bizarre religion, this Roman stated, and surely no Roman citizen would be found amongst their ilk, which only proved - he insisted, what a debased superstition this was, and so, fit only for the lowest of human animals.
Another document preserved in the common bible, more specifically Corinthians, agrees in part, describing the early christians by saying that they were not of noble birth, nor powerful by Roman standards, and were indeed the weakest of people in the Empire. Fortunately for them, this writer stated, God had chosen the very weakest and lowest citizens of the empire to overthrow the established Roman order. When considering the above, one may better understand the way that these Roman slaves would likely have understood certain parables and sayings.
For example, one definition of ‘who is a christian' stated that ‘if you do not pick up your cross and follow me you are not a christian.' What was this polemic, if not a call to repeat the acts of civil disobedience that led their leader to the cross, his disciples to be stoned, as well as leading later christians to be slaughtered in the Coliseums. In another passage we are told that no one can be a christian unless ‘they eat my flesh and drink my blood.' This gory sounding parable refers intimately to the conquest of the fear of persecution and even the fear of death, which are inherent in the symbolism of the cross.
Definitions such as these, regarding what it means to be a christian, are found to be consistent with the inherent symbolism of the crucifixion metaphor, unlike much later doctrines of salvation by means of mind control, dogmatic ritual and rhetoric. The call to civil disobedience is a call to pick up the cross, and thus we see a line of continuity, whereas the later doctrinal interpolations are found to be oppressive and thus we see a discontinuity.
In addition, the doctrine of mind control, dogmatic ritual and apologetic rhetoric has within it no connection whatsoever with the reality of crucifixion as a brutal system of oppression and terror, but rather it is isolated; a narrow and empty philosophical dogma in which there is no real connection to the struggle against domination in pursuit of liberation. It is meaningless, while the doctrine of carrying a cross, of civil disobedience is joined right to the heart of the crucifix symbol, since, after all, this is what crucifixion was all about.
So then, for this reason, I am going to ignore the widespread notion of ‘salvation through philosophy' - however popular, fanciful and generously funded, and instead respond to the question ‘Who is a christian?' by stating that a christian is someone who carries a cross, who practices civil disobedience, and that true theology is liberation theology, which cannot be found in esoteric abstract philosophical notions of apologetic rhetoric that are not found to be grounded in the resistance to systems of oppression - which is the core meaning of the crucifixion symbol.
Peace be with you ..
One Love

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by nwr, posted 08-12-2010 8:42 PM Bailey has replied
 Message 31 by Bikerman, posted 08-13-2010 1:51 PM Bailey has replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4400 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 32 of 36 (574214)
08-14-2010 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by nwr
08-12-2010 8:42 PM


Re: In Regards to Carrying a Cross
Thanks for the comment nwr. That bit of encouragement is quite meaningful to my family. Stay bless'd ..
One Love

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by nwr, posted 08-12-2010 8:42 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4400 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 33 of 36 (574234)
08-14-2010 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Bikerman
08-13-2010 1:32 PM


The Doctrine of the Divine Outhouse
Thank you for the comments Bikerman and I hope things are well with you and yours ..
I haven't seen Bri in a while, so I thought I might introduce an alternative perspective ..
You have taught potential ministers so I'm sure you know this, or maybe you disagree, but your reference to love thy neighbour in Leviticus needs deconstructing.
The Old Testament - or certainly the parts like leviticus that are from the Tanakh - need to be read in context of the intended audience - the Jews. 'People' is a concept reserved for other Jews, this is made clear in many places in the Tanakh. Thus when reference is made, such as not killing, and loving thy neighbour, one has to read that as meaning 'fellow Jew', not 'fellow man'. There is much slaughtering of non Jews, with either the tacit approval of God or the active participation of same.
This line of reasoning appears to struggle a bit when one takes note that the ToRaH was not polemically, much less historically, dictated, nor delivered, strictly to Yuhdeans or any other singular tribe - but rather was created for a grouping of numerous clans comprising what was then referred to as Yisrael, with the Yuhdeans representing but only one of those clans. Matter of factly, one will not find mention of their specific tribe before the booklet of 2nd Kings.
One could argue there is no monolithic Hebraic, Yisraeli, Yuhdean, nor Christian tradition - as history would likely not perjure itself, instead gladly testifying. It is worth noting here that not all the practitioners within the variant Yuhdean traditions were racists, as the radical school of Yisraeli prophets will testify. Connecting that racism and the arrogance that must go along with it to the booklets which nurtured it can be as easy as connecting dots with a ruler.
After all, nurture creates racists, and in this case it is indisputable that the racism of these Yuhdean elites, and those who joined to them, was created as a direct consequence of sucking on the teat of the ToRaH, then developed and nurtured by the TaNaHk, as was their belief in the innate superiority of the pure Yuhdean race; a doctrine which, as you mention, some attempt to promote repeatedly in various places throughout the canon upon which they rest.
However, the prophets critiqued conventional religious practices, dogma and traditional manuscripts, attacked the conventional religious interpretation of certain events as described in the canon and were also critics of the written - yet, ever-changing - ToRaH code; alleging that 'the lying pen of the scribes has worked falsley' and finally referencing it as 'sheer dung'. Bound up within their writings were statements of faith involving belief in a future justice ..
And they were often statements of faith, plain and simple; an expression of the justice of God prevailing, rather than any sort of specific ‘fortune telling'.
This, in spite of the belief and claim among a certain sect of very bigoted - and wealthy, Yudeans that the law books they came to possess were somehow ‘infallible' and thus one would assume, consistent as well. What came to evolve into the various Yuhdean traditions is actually a kind of quilt, made of many different patches of cloth, some of which - quite frankly, may prove more useful in the service of a divine outhouse where they could be employed for the remainder of their days in the wiping of holy backsides, rather than turning up in a book of supposedly ‘Divine Wisdom' such as the allegedly 'Holy' TaNaKh.
Again, racism is a matter of nurture, not nature. A little white baby will play quite happily with a little black baby, as will lil' arab and yuhdean babies.
You see, some of those patches of cloth that were sewn into that crazy quilt are some of the most harmfully, virulently racist, obscene, genocidal pieces of literature ever written. The world may very well have been the worse for wear having read them, and even more so for having read them in the context of a hoary old myth that would have us believe they're at the core of a divine book, a 'Holy Bible' (not to mention a supposed ‘gift of God'). However, regardless what one might think of all the serious flaws, the ToRaH, the TaNaHk, and indeed the Bible, are nonetheless some of the most important books ever written.
After all, it is nearly impossible to understand the propaganda used to justify the slaughtering you mention in your above post - the slavery and brutish racism of monarchial colonialism, or the imperialist religious ideology that was the well spring of dynastic colonialism, not to mention the rigid patriarchal society that was feudalism, without first understanding the imperialist streams of racism that flow ever so turbulently through those various documents.
As well, it may prove insurmountable to understand the religious intolerance practiced by the likes of the Aaronic priestcraft or the Yuhdean pharisees, as well as colonial priests and preachers who share their recipe - Catholic and Protestant alike, without first understanding the religious racism and violent intolerance boldly advocated, preached and promoted on the pages of those good ol' books renowned as ‘the Holy Word o' God'.
And if you still have doubts, you could ask an Anabaptist or consult Michael Servetus, but hey, that's just my 2 cents, and so, may peace rest upon you ..
One Love

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Bikerman, posted 08-13-2010 1:32 PM Bikerman has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4400 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 34 of 36 (574247)
08-14-2010 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Bikerman
08-13-2010 1:51 PM


A Prophet's Inheritance
interesting argument and well supported. I have to say that I find little to argue with in this ..
The sentiment is well appreciated - thank you for taking the time to post this.
What is .. perplexing .. is .. the gospels, and .. the whole NT, makes no reference to personal sacrifice for one's beliefs in the form of martyrdom ..
There is no consistent, or even apparent, theme of dying for beliefs anywhere in the NT which makes it rather strange ..
When one learns of the controversy surrounding the OT protest movements of biblical prophets and then considers that christianity - at its roots, is a form of yuhdean messianism which revolved around the prophetic Yisraeli traditions, the ever looming threat of a heretics inheritance may then become clearer ..
One Love
quote:
Matisyahu
5:12
~ Rejoice and be glad because your reward is great in heaven, for they persecuted the prophets before you in the same way.
23:31 ~ By saying this you testify against yourselves that you are descendants of those who murdered the prophets.
23:37 ~ O' Yerusalem, Yerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to her!
How often I have longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!
Acts o' the Apostles
7:52
~ Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute?
And they killed those who foretold long ago the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become!

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.
Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Bikerman, posted 08-13-2010 1:51 PM Bikerman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024