jar - On Christianity

Some people experience keen self-loathing, sometimes terminally so.

This is true, so they kill themselves, but don't they kill themselves to end the pain and isn't that really self-love?

I don't see how to get around the fact that every one of us is full of self-love no matter how twisted it may get.

Self-hate is self-love in disguise because you wouldn't hate yourself for your failures if you didn't love yourself so much you couldn't stand having the flaws that cause the self-hate.

Humility, true humility, as opposed to self-love /self-hate, would accept all the flaws and the failures without getting all depressed about them. And in that attitude there may be a really healthy self-love.

You are ignoring the context of our comments, which is Robin's strong attraction to some quintessentially Christian writings, including some of the Bible, especially the book of Ecclesiastes, and four of the most famous and orthodox greats in Christian history.

2. Traditional Christianity---belief in the Fall and the Passion. The Fall does not fit with evolution, unless we think animal pain doesn't matter. Questions about the historicity of Jesus. Questions about how Paul discusses Christ---lack of specifics about details of Jesus' life. Gap of 30-40 years before first texts. And the whole story is rather fantastic.

Not "rather," it's mindblowingly fantastic. It should give you chills if you ever really believe it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, you are right about Ecclesiastes, it got stuck in the list of quintessentials but that really only applies to Pascal, Edwards and Law. I don't know enough about Samuel Johnson. Ecclesiastes has always been hard to categorize, but the whole Bible is Christian nevertheless and the New Testament is certainly Jewish.

You must be Jewish yourself, or half Jewish to keep using the Hebrew name Yeshua. Anyway, your opinion about Jesus' being Jewish and all that has been discussed to death at EvC already, long before you came along. You'll find plenty on your side here and the usual suspects against.

However, perhaps an interesting side note is that when the OT canon was being put together, Ecclesiastes was one of the few books in doubt, so I understand -- so it was not even wholeheartedly accepted into the Jewish canon. There have always been those who regard it as a sort of black sheep in the canonical flock.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith writes:

You must be Jewish yourself, or half Jewish to keep using the Hebrew name Yeshua. Be careful with conjectures. He was Jewish or half Jewish. My use of his Hebrew name is motivated by a concern for accuracy.

It's a very silly pedantic notion that any word in its original language is by that fact necessarily more "accurate" than any translation of it. All terms and names change to fit the structure of the target language.

I thought that might be what you were getting at though, but I thought I'd try the guess that you are half Jewish anyway since Yeshua is the way Jesus is said in Messianic Jewish churches (you said you are half -- Taiwanese? I think.)

Yes, Ecclesiastes has always made orthodox theologians squirm. The merit of the book is obvious but the content is not really theistic.

It describes realistically the frustrations and meaninglessness of life in this fallen world, though. That is what Robin appreciates about it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

but the whole Bible is Christian nevertheless and the New Testament is certainly Jewish. what??? If anything, I would think that the New Testament would definetly be christian, seeing as how the OT has a bunch of the books also in the Torah.

Well, what do you think "Christian" is? The name was given to the first followers of the Jewish Messiah who were preponderantly Jewish.

And the Torah is missing the whole of the NT. which would suggest that the NT is definelty not jewish.

Well, let's see. Jesus was Jewish and he lived and died to fulfill the Hebrew scriptures. He quoted from almost every book of the Old Testament. All his disciples were Jewish. All the writers of the New Testament were Jewish except Luke. The New Testament is full of allusions to the Old Testament. How is it not Jewish?

then why did christianity break from the jewish fold?

Well, the Jews were wrong about his not being their Messiah. Jesus taught the right understanding of the Hebrew scriptures, and that He is the Messiah they were waiting for. He still is. Someday they will recognize him.

If they accepted Christ as the Way, doesn't that make them by necessity Christian?

Yes, but again "Christian" at first meant Jewish followers of the Jewish Messiah. Now it means all followers of the Jewish Messiah. This is the true fulfillment of the Hebrew scriptures. It is the Jews who do not recognize him as Messiah who are in error about the meaning of their scriptures.

Which eventually broke them from the jewish tradition? Which makes the NT christian, not jewish.

Again, the Jewish tradition was and is in error, as Jesus taught over and over again as he encountered the Jewish leaders. The true meaning of the Law and their scriptures is embodied in him and understood by those who recognize him as the Messiah.

unless you somehow think the christianity is sect of judiasm?

Well the early Romans called it a Jewish sect.

I'd say that protestantism and roman catholicism are much closer to each other than christianity is to judaism.

That's because Judaism has a wrong idea about the Hebrew scriptures and who the Messiah is.

romans considered them a sect of judaism, yes. Do you?

I carefully didn't use the word "Judaism." I said "Jewish sect." From the Roman point of view it was all a big vague Jewish thing they didn't understand one end of from the other.

But "Judaism" is the false understanding of the Hebrew scriptures I'm talking about. Jesus specifically denounced the teachings of Judaism when he denounced the Pharisees.

I said the New Testament is "Jewish." The Jews who recognized the Messiah or Christ were the true Jews. There were at least tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of them in the early days. It was a very Jewish movement -- but certainly not Judaism, because that is the teaching of the Pharisees.

If so, how do you feel being the son of an inept father? inept--your view that they screw up in not recognizing jesus as the messiah

The Jews who understood their scriptures followed Christ. They are my fathers, not the ones who didn't follow Christ.

You want to start a new thread? We're getting pretty far afield here. But it's really just a semantic quibble at this point, probably nowhere to go with it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's a very silly pedantic notion that any word in its original language is by that fact necessarily more "accurate" than any translation of it. All terms and names change to fit the structure of the target language. You're entitled to your opinion, of course. In mine, it's not a bad thing to use the original word as long as everyone knows what you are talking about.

The problem is that you would lose 98% of your English-speaking audience by using the Hebrew term.

With it, you catch some of the flavors and connotations of the culture that produced the word. That's often worth having. It's the difference between an Italian aria in English and an Italian aria in Italian.

But at that level it's an elite taste, not good for general communication to the average person.

Original flavors are especially valuable in the case of Yeshua. In a world where so many people claim to possess him it is useful to be reminded of the culture that produced him, the culture he lived and died within.

Christians who get good Biblical teaching with historical background pick up the cultural flavors that way.

Perspective can make all the difference. Would there have been so many pogroms in European history if the 'Jesus' people met in their churches had retained more of his identity as Yeshua the Rabbi, the man his first followers put down their nets to follow?

Well, the church in the Middle Ages had lost sight of a lot more than the Jewish culture of Jesus. Where to start?

Well, sure. That's what everybody likes about it. Qoheleth tells it like it is. Unforgettably.

I'm one who doesn't like it. I have a better appreciation for it thanks to a good series my pastor did on it, but I dislike being reminded of the dull plodding fallen world just because it is too much with us. However, I do enjoy Robin's appreciation of it, because he contrasts it with the lies and whitewashes of sentimentalism, New Age pretenses and that sort of thing.

It really is an anachronism, though, to refer to this book or any other in the Tanakh as 'Christian writings.' No one who penned any of those books, no person described in those books, no person who originally gathered the books into the canon, had ever heard of Christianity. Scholars, even Christian scholars, do not refer to these books this way. It's just a misnomer.

Well, no, it is not. Or at least the misnomer contains a far more important truth. All those writings had Christ as their shadow meaning, His Kingdom as their fulfillment. They ALL point to Him and His ultimate reign. The name "Christianity" is utterly irrelevant. The Messianic hope was there in the heart of every Hebrew who had a true spiritual understanding of his scriptures, and that means those who penned them, those described in them, and those who gathered them into the canon. Simeon and Anna had that blessed hope, as did all the true Hebrews back to Abraham. And so do some modern Biblical scholars. Those who don't, well, what can I say.

One can say the Hebrew Scriptures form part of the various Christian canons, of course. We can say that in this role they are often referred to as the 'Old Testament' by Christians. But they are not 'Christian writings.'

Yes, you are technically (pedantically):) correct, but I was being radical to make another point that's more important, and really, more true.

Christian writings are products of Christian theology. The books of the New Testament qualify, obviously. So do the writings of Augustine, Hildegard, Aquinas, Meister Eckhart, Teresa of Avila, Thomas Merton and similar figures. When scholars say 'Christian writings' this is the body of literature they mean.

Yes, but it's good to be reminded once in a while that orthodox Bible-believing Christians treat the WHOLE Bible as the revelation of God, and that every part of it contributes to an understanding of the other parts; the OT is not just an ancient Jewish text.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Or at least the misnomer contains a far more important truth. All those writings had Christ as their shadow meaning, His Kingdom as their fulfillment. They ALL point to Him and His ultimate reign. The name "Christianity" is utterly irrelevant. The Messianic hope was there in the heart of every Hebrew who had a true spiritual understanding of his scriptures, and that means those who penned them, those described in them, and those who gathered them into the canon. Simeon and Anna had that blessed hope, as did all the true Hebrews back to Abraham. And so do some modern Biblical scholars. This is a statement of your beliefs.

Everything is a statement of beliefs. The opposing view is a statement of beliefs. A statement of beliefs is a statement about what is regarded to be the truth. You can't determine which statement of differing beliefs is the true one by declaring it a statement of beliefs.

Many people who regard these books as authoritative, that revere them as sacred, that believe they come from God, do not share your beliefs.

Do tell. Could you have come up with a more obvious point?

Many who do still see no reason to be inaccurate or misleading in their terminology just to make a dogmatic point.

?? Neither do I nor anybody I know.

Just correct. The authors of the books were not Christians. The people described in the books are not Christians. The culture that produced the books and that appears in the books is not Christian.

In the truest meaning of the term Christian, which means a person who looks to the Messiah for salvation, they were all Christians, which was my point. Your point about the culture is trivial in this context.

Matters of content, culture, and authorship are not niggling little academic details. They go to the heart of why we describe a body of literature as we do.

That's fine, but I'm not discussing culture and literature myself, I'm discussing the inner meaning of the term Christianity, to answer your insistence that the only important thing is the cultural designation. I'm saying that misses the most important thing.

I have told you how most people, Christians and Jews, understand the term 'Christian writings.' Remember that 98% of the audience you're so concerned about?

That's fine but I'm talking to you not the 98%.

It makes sense to call the book of Mark, the writings of Eusebius, the visions of Hildegard of Bingen, and the sermons of Meister Eckhart 'Christian writings.' Everyone understands why.

But you are insisting on it merely for the purpose of trying to disqualify my claim that the OT is intrinsic to the Christian mindset, and this I will not let you do. We recognize a spiritual brotherhood with the ancient Hebrews who share this basic mindset despite all the cultural differences. The differences are real enough and academically applicable but trivial in this context.

It is thus silly to call the five books of The Torah 'Christian writings.'

It is silly in a way, but it gets across what I'm trying to get across.

This is not an accurate description of the literature. It is misleading to someone unfamiliar with the books. To people who are familiar with the books it just sounds ignorant, or dogmatic.

I'm not talking to people unfamiliar with the books, although I probably still wouldn't talk about them as you do but present them as part of the revelation that leads to Jesus Christ. I don't mind sounding ignorant or dogmatic to you.

Then you go on into all the stuff about the apocrypha and other trivia. Such differences are unimportant.

You just don't want to allow these texts to be Jewish at all.

In a sense that is true, because that obscures their real meaning. On the other hand they are completely Jewish. And so is Christianity.

The name Yeshua obviously bothers you, and it's not because the name has confused anyone here.

It only bothers me because it's a conceit as you use it so I took a poke at your conceit. I use it myself when talking to Messianic Jews.

You don't want to allow your Savior his Jewishness, either.

Funny then that I'm the one who focused on his Jewishness in this discussion.

Take another look at the top of this post.

My you're bossy.

I don't really see what the Fall has to do with christianity specifically.

It is why we need a Savior.

Isn't it also part of the jewish tradition?

No, they don't believe in the Fall.

after all, adam is their forefather, as is noah.

Adam is the father of the entire human race, not just the Jews. Noah is considered by the Jews to be something along the lines of the Moses of the Gentiles, as they say all nonJews are to follow the code of Law God gave Noah, whereas the Jews are to follow the Law of Moses. Abraham is the father of the Jews.

adam and eve commited original sin, noah survived (the fall?).

Original sin, Adam and Eve's disobedience of God, IS the Fall. Noah survived the worldwide Flood, which was God's punishment for all the sin that had accumulated in the world to that point because of the Fall.

So saying that Jar's not a christian (or whatever) because he doesn't accept that the fall occured is really pointless.

Robin is making the point that most of Christianity, and particularly the Christian writers he mentioned, all treat the Fall as important, so jar's brand of Christianity is something else.

I thought the key part about christianity was accepting Jesus as your savior--not believing in a fall.

True, but it is good to learn WHY one needs a savior, and that is because of the sin that entered the world with the Fall of our first parents.

I hope this clears up some confusion.