Political Crossfire Forums

[sLiPpY]

Recently, I've gotten interested in exploring early communities of individuals, who held a differing view from today's more Hellenistic Pauline brand of Christianity. Granted a few thousand years later, the debate of the question "Who is Jesus?" is still open and regularly negotiated.

The Ebionites are my personal favorites, the word is derived from the Hebrew Ebionim "the poor ones." For a little historical background, they were a sect of Judean followers of John the Baptist and later, Jesus of Nazareth.

Ebionites were in theological conflict with other ideas, that were floating around in the 1st Century. They were a distinct group from the Pauline and Gnostic Christians before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman Seige. Several modern scholars contend that the Ebionites were more faithful than Paul of Tarsus to the original and authentic teachings of Jesus and his brother James.

In a nut shell, here's what the Ebionites believed: Denied the divinity of Jesus, the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth and death of Jesus as an atonement for the Original Sin. We know that Epiphanius describes them as opposing animal sacrifice and they were vegetarians. There's collaberative evidence from 1st Century writings that Jesus rejected the Passover meat, and is quoted as saying "I have come to destroy the sacrifices."

The Ebionites answer the question of "Who is Jesus?" by emphasizing the humanity of Jesus as the mortal son of Mary and Joseph. They believed he was adopted as a son of God when he was anoited with the Holy Spirit at his baptism. They believe that he could have fulfilled the Davidic Covenant, but was chosen to be the last and greatest of prophets. The Ebionite view seems more consistant with the Gospel of Mark, and the absence of a Virgin Birth, and the presentation of the Baptism by John as an "annointing."

As to the post resurrection, they focus on how the resurrected Jesus appeared to his brother James and persuaded him to eat bread. I personally find the possibility more viable, in that it's normal for a lot of people to see a dead relative upon waking, or at some point in time during the grieving stage. I personally can attest to having seen my own mother at the foot of my bed as I was waking one morning, about a month after she'd passed. She even said a word, it didn't frighten me...but by the time I moved from sitting up and observing to moving forward. The image disappeared. I wouldn't call it a resurrection, but do perceive it as a normal aspect of life and the grieving process. Millions of people have had the experience. :wink:

Something I found interesting, the Ebionites only accepted an Aramaic version of the Gospel of Matthew, mostly now referred to as the Gospel of the Hebrews...as Scripture. What's missing in the Aramaic version are the first two chapters. Like Mark, the Aramaic version begins with the Baptism by John. There is no Virgin Birth.

Ebionites believed that all followers of Jesus, whether they be Hebrew or Gentile, must adhere to Noahide and Mosaic laws, tempered with the wisdom teachings of Jesus. It's theorized that it is the Ebionites who had an influence on Islam, which might explain Muslim perception that Jesus is not divine. Maintaining God's supreme and singular authority.

There is a modern Ebionite Jewish Community, that promotes Yahwism, and the recognition of Jesus as a Jewish prophet, rather than a Messiah. They claim that Christianity is not a biblically-based religion, and only accept the aramaic version of Matthew, less the Hellenistic additions.

Modern Ebionites are strictly monotheistic. They disallow a belief in a "Satan" that competes with God. Which also addresses my personal beef concerning the Persian and Zoroaster influence upon Pauline, and John the Elder Christianity.

:think: Considering my maternal Grandmother was Jewish, and in light of the Ebionites rejection of the Divinity, the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, and Satan. hmm...I'm already circumcised. Well, HELL! I might have just found a religion I'm willing to explore! ehh, "hell" pun intended. :lol:

[Saf]

Quote: the presentation of the Baptism by John as an "annointing."
Christ being Greek for anointed... A lot of modern Christians don't have the whole picture of Christ and the possibilities surrounding the religion. John, Paul and the early church councils have more authority in the minds of most Christians I know personally than Jesus does.

[sLiPpY]

Saf wrote: Quote: the presentation of the Baptism by John as an "annointing."
Christ being Greek for anointed... A lot of modern Christians don't have the whole picture of Christ and the possibilities surrounding the religion. John, Paul and the early church councils have more authority in the minds of most Christians I know personally than Jesus does.

I agree with that observation, and point out that Paul himself became very frustrated with communities he'd foster diverge from the newly created religion he'd espoused. It's fortunate that YHWH is both loving and merciful...well, then again the vast majority of Christians tend not to pray to the God of Israel. I'd gander most of them don't even give it a second thought, however suspect Cap'n might be aware.

[cap'n queasy]

I would have to say that if you are not praying to YHWH, the God of Israel, you are not following the teachings of Y'shua. And many people that profess to be Christians do just this. But to praise these divergent sects for this makes no sense to me, unless you your aim is to cause people to distrust Y'shua's teaching.

It is a fact that a large chunk of "Christendom" follows a form of religion that is strikingly akin to ancient forms of paganism. Concepts like the a divine mother child cult, dualism, praying to various semi-divine beings, the replacement of Israel by Christianity, amillenialism, allegorization of scriptures that are not meant to be allegory and many, many more are counter to what Y'shua taught but are ubiquitous in in mainstream denominations and modern culture.

There are millions of Bible believers who are aware of these flaws and speak out against them daily. Professing to believe in this kind of stuff is not worth much, as history shows. This modern church is the church that Y'shua said He would spit out because it is neither hot not cold.

John, Paul, and the early Church councils have no divergence from what Y'shua taught. One such important theme being that Israel is central in the big picture that YHWH has outlined in the scripture, which is among the many other things that are thrown by the wayside today. Their authority stems directly from Y'shua and is recognized by Bible believers only because it mirrors it perfectly, which is easily understood when a certain level of proficiency is reached. Completely misunderstanding the scripture because of a superficial study of the Bible by non-believers with only an interest in tearing something they don't understand down doesn't count for much. I hate to tell you that, but you need to know. It is what people believe now that is wildly divergent. Beliefs that are rooted in nearly two thousand years of heresy, syncretism with paganism, and just plain willfulness and blackheartedness. This had it's beginnings in the establishment of the Roman "christian" theocracy, starting around 300 AD or so. (actually all ancient civilizations were theocratic in nature, in some form or another) And has followed this sorry tradition to this day.

The Ebionites hardly follow the teachings of Christ closely, if they can be even said to follow them at all. Let me see if I can help you understand why this is so.

They are actually a sect of Judaism, because they follow Mosaic Law. (The fact that they see Y'shua as a type of prophet is irrelevant. They are what are generally known as Judaizers and are soteriologically divergent from Christ's teachings, as well as pretty far off from Judaism, as well. A syncretism, basically speaking) Y'shua taught the new covenant,(Jeremiah chapter 31 particularly verse 31) a law that will be written in men's hearts. Taking a statement such as "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." as an endorsement of Mosaic Law is taking the statement in complete ignorance of the surrounding context and the devoloping thematic structure of the entire scripture. And that is just what this sect does.

You see the followers of Mosaic Law in Y'shua's time were scrupulous in following the various minutia of the Law, just as "Ebionites" still do to this day, but in doing this they violated the spirit and meaning of what Moses and the Prophets taught, which can be found in this statement.

Quote: Matthew 22:35 One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, 36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" 37 And He said to him, " 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' 38 "This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 "The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' 40 "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."

You can keep the Law as closely to perfect as you want, but if these two things aren't happening in your life, keeping the Law is worthless to you. It is merely written on stone, but the Law that Y'shua taught was written in the hearts of men. It is not enough to perform rote activity or memorization perfectly, you must have the spirit of these two commandments in your heart. If this is so you can leave this Law behind completely, as you are beyond what it was designed for, to bring consciousness of sin to primitive men in a extremely barbaric culture that existed in a time when extreme brutality was the norm. BTW this statement is called the Shema in the Torah and was taught from the beginning of time.

And it will be until the end of time as well. As we can see by this statement.

Quote: Mt 5:18 - "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

You see, there is a thematic structure that runs through the entire scripture that many folks are unaware of. Some call it the "scarlet thread", if you attempt to interpret the scriptures in ignorance of this you will come away with only misconceptions and misunderstandings that profit no one. Every concept brought forward in the scripture must be considered with ever other concept contained withing the scripture.

Please allow me to give you an example so perhaps you can understand what violence you are doing to the scriptures. Take this statement, for example, without reference to any context or the thematic structure of the scriptures.

Quote: Lu 14:26 - "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.

Now I could say that this obviously shows that Y'shua taught us to hate our family.

But anyone who spends an hour reading the scriptures with an open heart and open mind will recognize my interpretation as completely ridiculous and would likely think someone would only make such an ignorant comment to be insulting.

Some concepts are a little more subtle than this blatant example, but the effect is essentially the same. This is why you are going to run into trouble conversing about the scriptures with certain folks, who take this seriously. It sounds like a deliberate insult to someone who is familiar with the Bible and had spent a good deal of time and effort to understand it. And perhaps a lot of times that is precisely the intention.

But I prefer to think it is merely ignorance and not meant to be spiteful.
Do you understand what I am talking about? Perhaps we can come to understand each other a little better with more effort on your part to familiarize yourself completely with the subject.

I can understand finding this to be hard to believe, but at least try to understand the complete picture before you undertake to tear it down, if only to have a decent argument that is worth your time and mine.

God Bless.

[John]

Quote: Some concepts are a little more subtle than this blatant example, but the effect is essentially the same. This is why you are going to run into trouble conversing about the scriptures with certain folks, who take this seriously. It sounds like a deliberate insult to someone who is familiar with the Bible and had spent a good deal of time and effort to understand it. And perhaps a lot of times that is precisely the intention.

But I prefer to think it is merely ignorance and not meant to be spiteful.

Thanks Cap! I needed to hear that. :-D

[sLiPpY]

***reply appears in blue

cap'n queasy wrote: I would have to say that if you are not praying to YHWH, the God of Israel, you are not following the teachings of Y'shua. And many people that profess to be Christians do just this. But to praise these divergent sects for this makes no sense to me, unless you your aim is to cause people to distrust Y'shua's teaching.

You seem to have perceived my point, that there are some who would say that if you do not call YHWH by name...you could be praying to any of innumerable amount of God's, that one would fail in their attempt to communicate with the God of Israel? "One Nation Under God" simply wouldn't cut it in that context. There always was, always has been and always will be diverging viewpoints as to answering the "Who is Jesus?" question. Two thousand years later, there's nothing new under the sun...excepting the fact that it is the Pauline and Hellenistic view that took hold and grew westward. There are at least six more 1st Century examples of communities similar to the Ebionites who lived closer to Nazareth and in Judaeh I can think of off the top of my head. And about three modern examples, of rather large groups that hold that Yahshua is only a prophet. My own view would be "none of the above."

It is a fact that a large chunk of "Christendom" follows a form of religion that is strikingly akin to ancient forms of paganism. Concepts like the a divine mother child cult, dualism, praying to various semi-divine beings, the replacement of Israel by Christianity, amillenialism, allegorization of scriptures that are not meant to be allegory and many, many more are counter to what Y'shua taught but are ubiquitous in in mainstream denominations and modern culture.

I find myself in agreement with each observation you've shared in the paragraph above. I found it interesting that you mention dualism; the Book of John is the primary literary example I can think of.

There are millions of Bible believers who are aware of these flaws and speak out against them daily. Professing to believe in this kind of stuff is not worth much, as history shows. This modern church is the church that Y'shua said He would spit out because it is neither hot not cold.

Here might be a good point for me to pose the question: Can Christians be Saved? And others might ask, saved from what? Granted I don't believe in an eternal fire to punish everyone who does not agree with me. And we'll leave it at that.

John, Paul, and the early Church councils have no divergence from what Y'shua taught. One such important theme being that Israel is central in the big picture that YHWH has outlined in the scripture, which is among the many other things that are thrown by the wayside today. Their authority stems directly from Y'shua and is recognized by Bible believers only because it mirrors it perfectly, which is easily understood when a certain level of proficiency is reached. Completely misunderstanding the scripture because of a superficial study of the Bible by non-believers with only an interest in tearing something they don't understand down doesn't count for much. I hate to tell you that, but you need to know. It is what people believe now that is wildly divergent. Beliefs that are rooted in nearly two thousand years of heresy, syncretism with paganism, and just plain willfulness and blackheartedness. This had it's beginnings in the establishment of the Roman "christian" theocracy, starting around 300 AD or so. (actually all ancient civilizations were theocratic in nature, in some form or another) And has followed this sorry tradition to this day.

I definately agree with the date you've indicated, as the beginnings of Roman "christian" theocrasy's impact on what has evolved into today. However point out, that there were all kinds of perceptions and elements added as the story spread along the Roman Highways. It's like playing the game of "gossip," and there is a good amount of evidence that many communities began to diverge in their perceptions within at least twenty years of Yahshua's crusifixtion.

The Ebionites hardly follow the teachings of Christ closely, if they can be even said to follow them at all. Let me see if I can help you understand why this is so.

They are actually a sect of Judaism, because they follow Mosaic Law. (The fact that they see Y'shua as a type of prophet is irrelevant. They are what are generally known as Judaizers and are soteriologically divergent from Christ's teachings, as well as pretty far off from Judaism, as well. A syncretism, basically speaking) Y'shua taught the new covenant,(Jeremiah chapter 31 particularly verse 31) a law that will be written in men's hearts. Taking a statement such as "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." as an endorsement of Mosaic Law is taking the statement in complete ignorance of the surrounding context and the devoloping thematic structure of the entire scripture. And that is just what this sect does.

You see the followers of Mosaic Law in Y'shua's time were scrupulous in following the various minutia of the Law, just as "Ebionites" still do to this day, but in doing this they violated the spirit and meaning of what Moses and the Prophets taught, which can be found in this statement.

Quote: Matthew 22:35 One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, 36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" 37 And He said to him, " 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' 38 "This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 "The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' 40 "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."

You can keep the Law as closely to perfect as you want, but if these two things aren't happening in your life, keeping the Law is worthless to you. It is merely written on stone, but the Law that Y'shua taught was written in the hearts of men. It is not enough to perform rote activity or memorization perfectly, you must have the spirit of these two commandments in your heart. If this is so you can leave this Law behind completely, as you are beyond what it was designed for, to bring consciousness of sin to primitive men in a extremely barbaric culture that existed in a time when extreme brutality was the norm. BTW this statement is called the Shema in the Torah and was taught from the beginning of time.

And it will be until the end of time as well. As we can see by this statement.

Quote: Mt 5:18 - "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

You see, there is a thematic structure that runs through the entire scripture that many folks are unaware of. Some call it the "scarlet thread", if you attempt to interpret the scriptures in ignorance of this you will come away with only misconceptions and misunderstandings that profit no one. Every concept brought forward in the scripture must be considered with ever other concept contained withing the scripture.

Please allow me to give you an example so perhaps you can understand what violence you are doing to the scriptures. Take this statement, for example, without reference to any context or the thematic structure of the scriptures.

Quote: Lu 14:26 - "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.

Now I could say that this obviously shows that Y'shua taught us to hate our family.

But anyone who spends an hour reading the scriptures with an open heart and open mind will recognize my interpretation as completely ridiculous and would likely think someone would only make such an ignorant comment to be insulting.

Some concepts are a little more subtle than this blatant example, but the effect is essentially the same. This is why you are going to run into trouble conversing about the scriptures with certain folks, who take this seriously. It sounds like a deliberate insult to someone who is familiar with the Bible and had spent a good deal of time and effort to understand it. And perhaps a lot of times that is precisely the intention.

But I prefer to think it is merely ignorance and not meant to be spiteful.
Do you understand what I am talking about? Perhaps we can come to understand each other a little better with more effort on your part to familiarize yourself completely with the subject.

I can understand finding this to be hard to believe, but at least try to understand the complete picture before you undertake to tear it down, if only to have a decent argument that is worth your time and mine.

God Bless.

The Book of Revelation alone would provide a complete semester's worth of study material. Over the duration of this semester, we've examined the thematic development for each writer for a high percentage of the books in the NT. We've noted what's the same, and what's missing, and in a context of purely forensic study, which I'm sure someone who is more theologically focused might find offensive. However, I'm pleased to share the class final is on Tuesday of the coming week. And as long as I don't goof up the essay, it looks like I'll find myself with the auspices of an A.

Our instructor finally shared that he attends an Orthodox church, but failed to specify what type? Greek, Russian, Eastern uhh...well, darn I can't think of any others.

The concept of an Introductory humanities course, is to encourge that one does no more than to explore. Further, to decide whether it is a subject that they are interested in enough to explore further.

I perceive religion as having a theraputic benefit, for individuals who embrace and practice it. Sometimes, those groups of individuals wreak either havoc or benefit within their local communities. Prime examples: A Muslim college student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, buying an SUV and attempting to run over his fellow students. i.e. A pastor's wife in Missouri, shooting her husband and fleeing with their children.

Or, it can have a positive benefit such as one I'd perceived this evening. I was standing at the counter to pick up a food order this evening, and started a conversation with an elderly gentleman. His wife of 62 years recently passed. The man told me that he used to beat her, but had finally repented of that. They'd had many difficult years.

Perhaps, that repentance was the man's way of dealing with his guilt for that paticular behavior and/or perhaps it's the source of his guilt?

Makes no difference, in that none of those situations has anything at all to do with me. My Church going grandfather, beat my grandmother with a broom the day before she died. It was a secret my Christian mother chose to keep from me and my sister, our whole lives. I'm sure all families have elements like that, at least that's what I've found in getting to know others well.

Religion isn't always a blessing, and it most certainly isn't always a curse. But for me, I've discovered I'm much happier living in it's absence.

So instead of "God Bless", in appreciation of Cap'nz eloquently rhetorical post..."Tomorrow's another day, make it beautiful our friend."

[Gilbert1908]

sLiPpY wrote: ***reply appears in blue

cap'n queasy wrote: I would have to say that if you are not praying to YHWH, the God of Israel, you are not following the teachings of Y'shua. And many people that profess to be Christians do just this. But to praise these divergent sects for this makes no sense to me, unless you your aim is to cause people to distrust Y'shua's teaching.

You seem to have perceived my point, that there are some who would say that if you do not call YHWH by name...you could be praying to any of innumerable amount of God's, that one would fail in their attempt to communicate with the God of Israel? "One Nation Under God" simply wouldn't cut it in that context. There always was, always has been and always will be diverging viewpoints as to answering the "Who is Jesus?" question. Two thousand years later, there's nothing new under the sun...excepting the fact that it is the Pauline and Hellenistic view that took hold and grew westward. There are at least six more 1st Century examples of communities similar to the Ebionites who lived closer to Nazareth and in Judaeh I can think of off the top of my head. And about three modern examples, of rather large groups that hold that Yahshua is only a prophet. My own view would be "none of the above."

It is a fact that a large chunk of "Christendom" follows a form of religion that is strikingly akin to ancient forms of paganism. Concepts like the a divine mother child cult, dualism, praying to various semi-divine beings, the replacement of Israel by Christianity, amillenialism, allegorization of scriptures that are not meant to be allegory and many, many more are counter to what Y'shua taught but are ubiquitous in in mainstream denominations and modern culture.

I find myself in agreement with each observation you've shared in the paragraph above. I found it interesting that you mention dualism; the Book of John is the primary literary example I can think of.

There are millions of Bible believers who are aware of these flaws and speak out against them daily. Professing to believe in this kind of stuff is not worth much, as history shows. This modern church is the church that Y'shua said He would spit out because it is neither hot not cold.

Here might be a good point for me to pose the question: Can Christians be Saved? And others might ask, saved from what? Granted I don't believe in an eternal fire to punish everyone who does not agree with me. And we'll leave it at that.

John, Paul, and the early Church councils have no divergence from what Y'shua taught. One such important theme being that Israel is central in the big picture that YHWH has outlined in the scripture, which is among the many other things that are thrown by the wayside today. Their authority stems directly from Y'shua and is recognized by Bible believers only because it mirrors it perfectly, which is easily understood when a certain level of proficiency is reached. Completely misunderstanding the scripture because of a superficial study of the Bible by non-believers with only an interest in tearing something they don't understand down doesn't count for much. I hate to tell you that, but you need to know. It is what people believe now that is wildly divergent. Beliefs that are rooted in nearly two thousand years of heresy, syncretism with paganism, and just plain willfulness and blackheartedness. This had it's beginnings in the establishment of the Roman "christian" theocracy, starting around 300 AD or so. (actually all ancient civilizations were theocratic in nature, in some form or another) And has followed this sorry tradition to this day.

I definately agree with the date you've indicated, as the beginnings of Roman "christian" theocrasy's impact on what has evolved into today. However point out, that there were all kinds of perceptions and elements added as the story spread along the Roman Highways. It's like playing the game of "gossip," and there is a good amount of evidence that many communities began to diverge in their perceptions within at least twenty years of Yahshua's crusifixtion.

The Ebionites hardly follow the teachings of Christ closely, if they can be even said to follow them at all. Let me see if I can help you understand why this is so.

They are actually a sect of Judaism, because they follow Mosaic Law. (The fact that they see Y'shua as a type of prophet is irrelevant. They are what are generally known as Judaizers and are soteriologically divergent from Christ's teachings, as well as pretty far off from Judaism, as well. A syncretism, basically speaking) Y'shua taught the new covenant,(Jeremiah chapter 31 particularly verse 31) a law that will be written in men's hearts. Taking a statement such as "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." as an endorsement of Mosaic Law is taking the statement in complete ignorance of the surrounding context and the devoloping thematic structure of the entire scripture. And that is just what this sect does.

You see the followers of Mosaic Law in Y'shua's time were scrupulous in following the various minutia of the Law, just as "Ebionites" still do to this day, but in doing this they violated the spirit and meaning of what Moses and the Prophets taught, which can be found in this statement.

Quote: Matthew 22:35 One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, 36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" 37 And He said to him, " 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' 38 "This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 "The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' 40 "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."

You can keep the Law as closely to perfect as you want, but if these two things aren't happening in your life, keeping the Law is worthless to you. It is merely written on stone, but the Law that Y'shua taught was written in the hearts of men. It is not enough to perform rote activity or memorization perfectly, you must have the spirit of these two commandments in your heart. If this is so you can leave this Law behind completely, as you are beyond what it was designed for, to bring consciousness of sin to primitive men in a extremely barbaric culture that existed in a time when extreme brutality was the norm. BTW this statement is called the Shema in the Torah and was taught from the beginning of time.

And it will be until the end of time as well. As we can see by this statement.

Quote: Mt 5:18 - "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

You see, there is a thematic structure that runs through the entire scripture that many folks are unaware of. Some call it the "scarlet thread", if you attempt to interpret the scriptures in ignorance of this you will come away with only misconceptions and misunderstandings that profit no one. Every concept brought forward in the scripture must be considered with ever other concept contained withing the scripture.

Please allow me to give you an example so perhaps you can understand what violence you are doing to the scriptures. Take this statement, for example, without reference to any context or the thematic structure of the scriptures.

Quote: Lu 14:26 - "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.

Now I could say that this obviously shows that Y'shua taught us to hate our family.

But anyone who spends an hour reading the scriptures with an open heart and open mind will recognize my interpretation as completely ridiculous and would likely think someone would only make such an ignorant comment to be insulting.

Some concepts are a little more subtle than this blatant example, but the effect is essentially the same. This is why you are going to run into trouble conversing about the scriptures with certain folks, who take this seriously. It sounds like a deliberate insult to someone who is familiar with the Bible and had spent a good deal of time and effort to understand it. And perhaps a lot of times that is precisely the intention.

But I prefer to think it is merely ignorance and not meant to be spiteful.
Do you understand what I am talking about? Perhaps we can come to understand each other a little better with more effort on your part to familiarize yourself completely with the subject.

I can understand finding this to be hard to believe, but at least try to understand the complete picture before you undertake to tear it down, if only to have a decent argument that is worth your time and mine.

God Bless.

The Book of Revelation alone would provide a complete semester's worth of study material. Over the duration of this semester, we've examined the thematic development for each writer for a high percentage of the books in the NT. We've noted what's the same, and what's missing, and in a context of purely forensic study, which I'm sure someone who is more theologically focused might find offensive. However, I'm pleased to share the class final is on Tuesday of the coming week. And as long as I don't goof up the essay, it looks like I'll find myself with the auspices of an A.

Our instructor finally shared that he attends an Orthodox church, but failed to specify what type? Greek, Russian, Eastern uhh...well, darn I can't think of any others.

The concept of an Introductory humanities course, is to encourge that one does no more than to explore. Further, to decide whether it is a subject that they are interested in enough to explore further.

I perceive religion as having a theraputic benefit, for individuals who embrace and practice it. Sometimes, those groups of individuals wreak either havoc or benefit within their local communities. Prime examples: A Muslim college student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, buying an SUV and attempting to run over his fellow students. i.e. A pastor's wife in Missouri, shooting her husband and fleeing with their children.

Or, it can have a positive benefit such as one I'd perceived this evening. I was standing at the counter to pick up a food order this evening, and started a conversation with an elderly gentleman. His wife of 62 years recently passed. The man told me that he used to beat her, but had finally repented of that. They'd had many difficult years.

Perhaps, that repentance was the man's way of dealing with his guilt for that paticular behavior and/or perhaps it's the source of his guilt?

Makes no difference, in that none of those situations has anything at all to do with me. My Church going grandfather, beat my grandmother with a broom the day before she died. It was a secret my Christian mother chose to keep from me and my sister, our whole lives. I'm sure all families have elements like that, at least that's what I've found in getting to know others well.

Religion isn't always a blessing, and it most certainly isn't always a curse. But for me, I've discovered I'm much happier living in it's absence.

So instead of "God Bless", in appreciation of Cap'nz eloquently rhetorical post..."Tomorrow's another day, make it beautiful our friend."



Finally, I knew I would see it as an example some day and here it is.

The positiive aspect of religion is represented as "I stopped beating my wife".

Thank you for making my prediction come true.

FYI, the next one I predicted is that someone will claim that the positive aspect of religion is that it keeps child molesting priests off the street for one hour every Sunday.

Cmon don't dissapoint me I know its coming someday.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: the Book of John is the primary literary example I can think of.



How so?

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Religion isn't always a blessing, and it most certainly isn't always a curse. But for me, I've discovered I'm much happier living in it's absence.


I wouldn't blame Y'shua's teachings for something your grandfather did. I would blame the fact that he is a screwed up **** who beats his wife with a stick. Perhaps he realizes he has problems and that is why he turns to Y'shua.

All people have problems, not just people who believe in God. Some are worse than others.

[connermt]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Religion isn't always a blessing, and it most certainly isn't always a curse. But for me, I've discovered I'm much happier living in it's absence.


I wouldn't blame Y'shua's teachings for something your grandfather did. I would blame the fact that he is a screwed up ***hole who beats his wife with a stick. Perhaps he realizes he has problems and that is why he turns to Y'shua.

All people have problems, not just people who believe in God. Some are worse than others.

Of course God can't be blamed for these type of things. It is the person's responsibility to interpret & carry out God's 'plan' & ideas for them. People are what screw it up. And if people can screw up God's plan, they can basically screw up anything.
My grandfather (who is known as Jame & not grandpa) is a retired baptist minister that was VERY abusive, both mentally & physically, to his wife & kids. He even disowned his own daughter while she was in high school when she dated a black guy. Now he is reaping the harvest of a screwed up family.
Do I blame God? No. James is just an example of a crazy old SOB that used religion & his very ignorant understanding of God & the bible to justify his own evil, hateful, judgmental hypocritical lifestyle still to this day.

[cap'n queasy]

Well, if those stories are truthful, I can see why you guys have some problems with Christianity.

Satan does his best work from the pulpits of our churches. Take a look at history.

It's quite unfortunate. My grandfather was a school superintendent and sunday school teacher. A very intelligent man who I thought was a wretched tight ass when I was a teen ager. He died before I became a Christian and could appreciate what he really was about, but now that I am an adult I realize what I missed out on because of my stupid attitude towards the world and him.

Damn, I miss him. Be careful what you do with your life, sometimes there are no second chances.

[connermt]

cap'n queasy wrote: Well, if those stories are truthful, I can see why you guys have some problems with Christianity.

Satan does his best work from the pulpits of our churches. Take a look at history.

It's quite unfortunate. My grandfather was a school superintendent and sunday school teacher. A very intelligent man who I thought was a wretched tight ass when I was a teen ager. He died before I became a Christian and could appreciate what he really was about, but now that I am an adult I realize what I missed out on because of my stupid attitude towards the world and him.

Damn, I miss him. Be careful what you do with your life, sometimes there are no second chances.

I am sorry you miss your grandpa. :(

James is not the reason why I have issues with anything (other than James himself). What some people don't understand is that when you say you are a christian (& even more so when you have a leadership role in your church) people look to you & scrutinize your actions even more so. People see you as a representative of God. And when you are hateful & suck (much like James) it sours many people's attitude towards God, justifiably or not.

[sLiPpY]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: the Book of John is the primary literary example I can think of.



How so?

Well, I perceive John as presenting by use of discource vs. parable. It's more of a theological presentation vs. any other book in the Bible.

There appears to be a subtext of recurring focus on the following two subjects, which I perceive to be dualism? and it may only be in a literary sense. As follows: Truth vs. Error, God vs. World

[sLiPpY]

cap'n queasy wrote: Well, if those stories are truthful, I can see why you guys have some problems with Christianity.

Satan does his best work from the pulpits of our churches. Take a look at history.

It's quite unfortunate. My grandfather was a school superintendent and sunday school teacher. A very intelligent man who I thought was a wretched tight ass when I was a teen ager. He died before I became a Christian and could appreciate what he really was about, but now that I am an adult I realize what I missed out on because of my stupid attitude towards the world and him.

Damn, I miss him. Be careful what you do with your life, sometimes there are no second chances.


I do agree with connermt, that one cannot hold an "entity" responsible for the actions and lack of good faith on the part individuals.

Thanks for sharing the story concerning your Grandfather, in that it gave me some valuable perspective context with regard to an item that's been at issue with my nephew for about a year.

I gave the twelve year old a computer, and later the thirteen year old's grades began to suffer in school. The computer's motherboard blew up, and I told the nephew when he asked if I'd repair it...that it's not worth my time or money unless he succeeds in bringing home a minimum of C's. Kid has been making A's, B's and flunking one easy class or another because he says that he's bored.

I'm sure that kid possibly think's I'm a "tight ass." However, I could really care less about what the kid thinks of me. It's not my role in life to be that kid's friend, my role is to be an uncle and I don't think I'd be doing him any favors to fix the machine without sticking to the condition for the third quarter in a row.

It will be interesting to see what transpires, should he succeed in this final quarter. I'll keep my word, but I also let my sister know...that when and if the agreement is met. Should his grades go south again, feel free to throw the computer in the garbage can. :wink:

Capn's brief sharing, although I don't have the full context. Helped me realise I'm being a mature adult, in this one aspect of my life. Granted I'm still very much a kid, in others. :lol:

[garyd]

The difference in this is of course that the Ebionites and the Gnostics were both dead wrong and for much the same reason. And the reason goes back to the Old Testament. IN Isaiah we find to key passages the first stating that only God can forgive sin and the second that the Messiah can forgive sin hence we have either a clear contradiction in scripture, and on something of far more import than the size of Solomon's stables, or the Messiah must be God.

[mattwa33193]

garyd wrote: The difference in this is of course that the Ebionites and the Gnostics were both dead wrong and for much the same reason. And the reason goes back to the Old Testament. IN Isaiah we find to key passages the first stating that only God can forgive sin and the second that the Messiah can forgive sin hence we have either a clear contradiction in scripture, and on something of far more import than the size of Solomon's stables, or the Messiah must be God.

Or the New Testament is wrong.

Or the Old Testament is wrong.

[cap'n queasy]

Yep, that's the size of it.

Either the Bible is wrong or the world that denies the Word of God is wrong.

I'm not putting my money on the world. It hasn't seemed to get very much right, that I can see.

I would rather believe foolishness.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: There appears to be a subtext of recurring focus on the following two subjects, which I perceive to be dualism? and it may only be in a literary sense. As follows: Truth vs. Error, God vs. World

Dualism is a belief in two equal forces that balance each other out. A good god and a bad god, basically. That's why it is called dualism.

Dual gods, that are equal in power.

Error does not balance Truth, and God certainly does not balance against the weight the world. Error is obviously infinitely inferior to truth. And God is not in conflict with a world that is in any way equal to Him. An infinitely inferior world is in conflict with God.

Yet in spite of this YHWH sent His only begotten son, that we be redeemed even though we constantly foolishly choose error over Truth.

God loves the world, yet the world hates God. Just read some of the postings on this forum and you will get a sense that very few people can countenance the idea that they are beholden to something infinitely greater than themselves. They hate that idea more than anything. They can't stand it and they can't stand anyone who dares to speak out about this Truth.

It's madness.

[mattwa33193]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: There appears to be a subtext of recurring focus on the following two subjects, which I perceive to be dualism? and it may only be in a literary sense. As follows: Truth vs. Error, God vs. World

Dualism is a belief in two equal forces that balance each other out. A good god and a bad god, basically. That's why it is called dualism.

Dual gods, that are equal in power.

Error does not balance Truth, and God certainly does not balance against the weight the world. Error is obviously infinitely inferior to truth. And God is not in conflict with a world that is in any way equal to Him. An infinitely inferior world is in conflict with God.

Yet in spite of this YHWH sent His only begotten son, that we be redeemed even though we constantly foolishly choose error over Truth.

God loves the world, yet the world hates God. Just read some of the postings on this forum and you will get a sense that very few people can countenance the idea that they are beholden to something infinitely greater than themselves. They hate that idea more than anything. They can't stand it and they can't stand anyone who dares to speak out about this Truth.

It's madness.

Speaking only for myself, I have no doubt that there is a power infinitley greater than myself. I just don't believe Paul.

[cap'n queasy]

That's up to you.