 |
I have to disagree with you on this. Paul wasn't like this at all. In the New Testament, God didn't want sacrifices, he desired mercy. Jesus was the Sacrificial Lamb. True, John & Peter explain this better than Paul;but, there is truly nothing tragic about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
Paul has had a bad press. He has even been accused of 'inventing' Christianity. However, wemust understand that Paul was the first Christian theologian, and because he labored among Greeks he had to explain what Jesus was about in terms they could understand. Although there is no continuing consistency in paul's writings - he writes to whatever matter is before him - yet it is not difficult to reconcile his positions on various essential matters with what are recorded as the teachings of Jesus.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
I agree somewhat about Paul's (if indeed it is Paul writing ijn Hebrews) drawing on imagery and symbolism of the Temple and its services to illustrate who and what Jesus was in his letter to Jewish Christians. We find John using similar literary techniques in his Apocalypse.
The whole point of the works of gospellers and epistolarians is to make the Christian message relevant and available in terms with which they were familiar. This is one reason why reading an English translation of the Bible in today's world conveys to non-specialists so little of what was originally intended, because most people are unable to read it through a mindset equivalent to those of Palestinians and Greeks of two thousand years ago.
It is possible that Paul's greatest point of divergence is with John's view of eschatology, but John wrote much later when the non-appearance of Jesus was troubling the saints.
Hello, and welcome to the discussion. I'm not sure I understand you. Your statement that "Jesus was the Sacrificial Lamb" seems to imply that you agree with Paul's interpretation, i.e. that Jesus' suffering and death was necessary and instrumental in effecting God's forgiveness, in the same way that the death of the animal sacrifice was essential in the temple ritual. If that's the case, I guess we do disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrotia
My contention is that the analogy between Jesus' death and the death of the animal sacrifice is a misunderstanding of Jesus' mission to reveal God as a Father who freely offers His children unconditional love, abundant mercy and willing forgiveness, not a remote and severe judge who demands the death of an innocent person as the price of forgiveness. It's the consequences of this misunderstanding that seem tragic to me.
You could not mean #80 as that was not yours. I looked at #180, but need a clearer statement of your direct question.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Sorry I wanted clarity as to your disagreement to post!#175, as your disageement made no sense to me.
Also your response to #181 about redemption where did that come from as you directed it at me in 184 when that's not what I asked at all, please explain.
For my information, which translations to you consider reliable, and/or which ones are not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Morganite
You make much of discrepancies in the Bible, but do not above 90% of all scripture remnanents agree? People who copied scripture were very careful, I understand. If the preponderance of copies agree, don't you think we may safely assume thea we are getting a correct message? Do you think that a God who could give us His word is not able to protect the purity of that word? Yes, it would be helpful to read and understand the origingal languages, but most of us cannot do that, so we depend on an English translation.
As to study, what's the problem with just reading the Book? Jesus said the Law and Prophets testify of Him. It is no great difficulty to read the English translation of those prophecies about Christ, and then read the literal fulfillment in the New Testament.
Why do you not study the koran or the torah, as they are making the same claim as you do??Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Different people different names, the native indians call him the great sprite, no one ever complains about that one. I guess it is based on how you serve which ever name you choose. Like the sabbath some say Saturday some says Sunday, no walls are falling over that one. People just do not know how to respect each other not even for their own ideas,opinonsQuote:
Originally Posted by galveston
I did so want to respond to you sooner but my computer crashed. Anyway, the term Sacrificial Lamb is a figurative term. In 1Corinthians 5:7,Paul says: For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. This has to do with Christ's death being an atonement for the sins of man. Why do you get hung up comparing Jesus' death to animal sacrifices?Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
It certainly is a misunderstanding for you to believe that the apostle Paul, who wrote the majority of the N.T. preached that way.
Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Anyone who rejects Christ as Savior, who denies the Savior who bought him(2Peter2:1)-that person will be subject to God's wrath for eternity(Romans1:18) not His love(Romans6:23)
God's love is both unconditional & conditional.
Since I ran out of time, didn't save my text, computer crashed, & it's late- I'll refer you to this site which explains about God's unconditional & conditional love.Acts 17:11 Dialog: Is God's Love Unconditional?
Logically that does not makes any sense - it's one or the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrotia
I understand the figurative analogy between Jesus and the sacrificial lamb. What I object to is the idea that his death was a necessary element in effecting a reconciliation between God and man. I don't believe that God insisted on the death of an innocent person in order to forgive and be reconciled to His children. I believe that it was Jesus' life, not his death, that was essential to our reconciliation, and that the required change was not in God's attitude toward us, but our understanding of Him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrotia
and the same can be said of the christian faith can't it?the birth of christ story was cooped from what you would call a pagan faith, and same with many of the other stories in the bible.Then the church pick the dates of all there holy days to coincide with pagan holidays and built their churches on the sites the earlier religions held holy,didn't they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSavage
Interestying. It is certain that there are many stories of a dying and rising God - Osiris in Egypt for example, and Tammuz, etc - but the story of Jesus is of a different order because Jesus was an historic figure, and there are witrnesses to the events of his life, death and resurrection.
It is imlortant to acknowledge that the religion of ancient Israel did not sprig out of a vacuum, and that surrounding societies not only impinged on Israelie society, but also impacted its religion. This provides some similarities and parallels in the OT and in the mythology of the surrounding civilisations.
As Christianity spread it supplanted earlier creeds and gods, so what better way to demonstrate in a concrete way the superiority of Christianity over the previous gods of the new Christians. Thus, what was once a grove became a church building, what was a temple to a pagan deity became a church, and so on.
As to Christian holy-days being syperimposed on the dates of pagan festivals, it is well to remember that there are only 365 days in most years, so if you want to establish a new feast to honour a particular saint, finding a day that was not once paganised is probably impossible.
While it is undeniably true that both Judaism and Christianity enfolded some pagan notions into their respective faiths and practices, the Christianization of the day, usually indicate a complete break with the pagan past. That being so, what used to happen on that day is of no importance and has no bearing or influence on what happens on the new feast and what it celebrates.
Take your own nativity as an example. If you search you will be able to find good and bad events that took place on the same date, but that doesn't make a link to you. Separate events on the same date have only the date in common, and that is usually not significant.
My own birthday coincides with an event in the life of Adolph Hitler's life, but I assure you that apart from sharing a common date there is absolutely no significant connection between Adolph and me. Synchronicity should never be taken as evidence of connection.
M:)RGANITE
NK,Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
It is an interesting point that you address. Yet it could be argued that while God is described as 'no respecter of persons' [meaning that he does not prefer one person over another when it comes to dispensing justice, etc.] he also says "Jacob I have loved but Esau I have hated.' There are other examples, and what probably needs to be done to fathom this question is to take cases where God shows unconditional love for the whole human family and yet offers cursings for those whom oppose him, and blessings for those who obey. That could mean that he always loves all his children unconditionally but that he has set conditions to the receipt of certain blessings.
The Decalogue provides some examples of this.
The fact of variants [disagreements] in Bible texts is not in dispute. I cannot place a percentage of who agrees with what, but the book of Luke exists in ancient manuscript forms in more than 24,000 different version. I am doing no more than stating a well known truth. I am not making "much" of it. The differences are there, the textual difficulties have been demonstrated for hundreds of years, so they are facts of Bible life. Whether you choose to make much or little of them is up to you. I only mention them.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
The copyists were m,eant to be extremely particular and careful, but it is undeniable that errors were made by copyists. The notion that each copy was authenticated as 100% a correct copy of its 'father' is mythical. Copyists made mistakes, and some of them are glaringly obvious to Bible readers who are careful in their reading and thinling.
The problem with just reading the book is that it contains muchj from ancient cultures and modes of thought that the modern man in the street does not understand, and that means that if the contex is not available to him, he will not be able to obtain the force of the message the original monographist intended to convey.
Whatever God is or is not capable of does not change the fact that establishing the authentic text of the Bible is a minefield in which there is no general agreement. That disagreement, however, should not be made a cause of war. It is far better to search for truth with your 'enemy' than it is to get to fisticuffs with him to try to reach agreement. Bible scholars are, in the main, honest and do not represent any sectarian point of view that must be served, and so skues their interpretations.
However, many commentaries written under certain imprests [Banner of Truth, for example] are unashamedly Protestant, sola scriptura, sola fide, etc, etc, etc, in their conclusions. Others are even more pointed in supporting the views of particular sects and cults against the views of other cults and isms, but these are not honest scholarly commentaries but homiletica with a polemic chaser. From such unreliable and biased writings, turn away.
When you choose an English translation that you are at the mercy of the translator. Even reading his credentials could make him seem to be more authoritarian than he is. Ask, is he/she known and honoured among the academic corps of biblical scholars?
Two of my favourite bibklical commentaries are the SPCK, and Peake's Commentary. They are much better than most. Peake's is especially helpful to the non-specialist, as it goes into greater detail, while the SPCKs Commentary on the Holy Sciptures is more intense in its coverage of background, etc.. Introductions are no accessible to the non specialist, and these should not be approached until the groundwork has been done, and an appreciation of the history, background, sit im leben, weltgeist, and zeitgeist of the people in the story and/or the target readership at each turn in the road.
Biblical Hebrew is not a difficult language to learn, and reading the Hebrew Scriptures for one'sself is like a man ploughing a field he has ploughed scores of times, but suddenly tuns up treasure trove! It is a votage of discovery and excitement. Some of our predelictions and prejudices will be challenged and fopund wanting, but what could be better than reading and understanding the sacred writings as they were meant to be read?
M:)RGANITE
I believe that I do study from the torah. Isn't that the "law and prophets" that Jesus said testify of Him? (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers & Deuteronomy). Now, unless I have been grossly misinformed, the Koran claims that Mohammed is God's greatest prophet, and Jesus merely a "prophet". I have not heard if Mohammed walked out of a tomb after being dead three days and nights, so I don't think the claims are exactly the same. Do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
No, but what is your point?
Torah is 'instruction' generally referred to as the 'law. The prophets are nebi'im, and other writings are ketubim. The first letter of each of these three make TNK, pronounced tanach or tanak, referring to the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Have you heard what did happen to Mohammed? He was/is not held to be divine.
Muhammad never claimed divinity at all.
All of us here have been going back and forth about the differences that can be pointed out about the various religions, that's easy, but can no one see the similarities that they all have, history notwithstanding? After all they all sprang from ancient tribal man. What makes one any better than the other? I mean they all profess a GOD so what more could you ask for? You mean to tell me this is not enough common ground among humans and accept that we all don't know, but have filled in the gaps with our own regional tribal logic. Has any one forgotten the wars and human migrations over the centuries that have spread one word or another? You can change the name and be still be talking about the same thing, and I'm sure there is a written record somewhere you can quote dogma from, but is this enough to put one above the other and accept this as a fact for all? Or should we just concede that whom ever has the biggest stick will tell the rest what the truth is.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:05 AM. |