Jump to content

Elen1107

Members
  • Posts

    480
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Posts posted by Elen1107

  1. 4 hours ago, thormas said:

    Well I thought we ended the conversation but...........

     

    Don't want to get back into the conversation,... but just happened to run into this verse. - since we were discussing whether Jesus could read and write earlier, this verse at least states that he could read:

    Luke 4: 16 He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:...

    Just thought I'd mention and share it.

  2. 16 hours ago, thormas said:

    I actually believe - as I have said previously - that people are of primary importance and it is people who...........write books. To read a book is to engage another human being in dialogue. Some discussions are with people who are still alive, some with people long past (including the writers of the gospels who were faithful to Christ and did their best).  I have no issue with faith and spirituality or being in Christ or in God......however I find that some opinions on these topics border on theism which I simply no longer accept.

     

    I myself hope to keep putting God, the HS & JC first, and people and myself second in line after these. I used to do things the other way around and it didn't work out well for me at all. If you call this "theism", that's fine. I rather like the word theism, myself. Where people like Spong and other PCs use the word theism or theistic, I tend to rather use the words deity or deists or deisms. To me it means something like a man in the sky in a robe with a long white beard. As much as I love one of the pictures on the Sistine Chapel, that depicts god like this, I really don't think that's God.  It might be and 'indicator' of god or a small pointer to God, put it really doesn't amount to much more than god's fingernail or something like that.

    --------------------

    I think it's just common sense to assume that all people or a certain group, whether Jews or Christians, are not apocalyptic in their thinking.

  3. 2 hours ago, thormas said:

    The books I have been talking about are the gospels (the NT) and you have been quoting them in your posts.Unless one is a literalist, we know they are a mix of 'truth' and fiction but you'll have to give examples of the bile and explain why you think some are bile and mean???

     

    Read JS Spong's book, 'The Sins of the Scriptures". there's a whole book full of what can be considered "bile", and one could even add to it a bit.

    I'm not really interested in having this/these conversations, & don't really have the time.

    You believe that Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew and that he was wrong.... I don't. - - For one thing I think that apocalyptic thinking like this is kind of dumb. To think that one day God is going to blow down this whole wide world and then build it up again in a day or a year or whatever, ta-da, just like that, is just kind of stupid. I don't think that Jesus was or is that dumb. I also don't think that all 1st C. Jews or a whole lot of other people were that dumb either. Apparently some of them were or they wouldn't have be writing letters about it and putting words into JC's mouth that said that was what he thought. - -

    You believe that books and texts and writings are of primary importance. I believe faith and spirituality and being "in" Christ and God and "in" their love and insight is primary and most important, and experiencing God and Christ is real and open to everyone. This is what gives us the insight to know how to live and get through our days and to know what to do.

    We are different. Lets just agree to be different and move on.

  4. 3 minutes ago, thormas said:

    They were passed down orally and then the same word was passed on in written form. The few words, 'Jesus is the Christ' were not sufficient in the beginning and the disciples were there to cite their scriptures, tell of this man, Jesus, with whom they lived and encourage others with their words. Now with the disciples gone, the written gospels fulfill this same mission and need. The Christian communities believe it is the 'same word.' If you do not, please explain why it is not.

     

    Well, perhaps it's not ALL the same word. Perhaps some of it IS and some of it isn't. Perhaps some of it has been edited and insertions have been made, to reflect what ever these editors and inserters wanted to add or take away from Jesus's message.

    If people just accept the Spirit of Christ within them, they/we can better discern what is and are Jesus's true messages and wisdom. Perhaps if people just had that, or just went with that, or gave more credence and importance to just that, then we wouldn't be in the awful, confusing muddle we are in now about what is and what isn't the real and true word and ways of God.

  5. 54 minutes ago, thormas said:

    It's not one statement as these scholar have presented numerous apocalyptic comments and references. Allison, alone, in a book previously referenced, cites at least 30 texts and many of these are found in multiple gospels, so the number is beyond 50. 

     

    Apparently a number of people who wrote about Jesus were apocalyptic or at least partially  apocalyptic in their thinking. This does not mean that Jesus was. It just means that the people who wrote about him after his ministry were.

    54 minutes ago, thormas said:

    Again, what people? Examples??

     

    People with true faith and belief in Christ.

     

    59 minutes ago, thormas said:

    Everything that was passed along orally by the early community was presented with reference to Jewish scriptures and/or made up part of the oral traditions that became part of the NT.

    Or, it could have been just based in their faith in Christ 

  6. 4 hours ago, thormas said:

    However is he saying that there are radically different view specifically of the expected Messiah and the Kingdom to be established by God on earth? That, after all, is what we are focusing on. 

    Are you saying the 'regular people' believed something different? If so, what? Regardless of whether or not he was a Pharisee, Paul was an apocalypticist like Jesus and his followers.

    What we are focusing on is was Jesus apocalyptic and was this the way and the only way that he and the Jews of the 1st C. saw and understood the coming of the Kingdom.

    I'm saying that it is quite possible that Jesus was not apocalyptic. I'm also saying that it is quite possible that there were Jews and Gentiles who were not apocalyptic, and that they saw the coming of the Kingdom in a different way and form, rather than the apocalyptic one. 

  7. 4 hours ago, thormas said:

    Well you have been quoting those books in many different posts on this site - so one can only assume you must think they are really good and good enough to quote and rely on 😋 

     

    The problem with these books is that they are a mixture of truth and fiction and outright bile. Some parts a truth and worth quoting and are good messages. Other parts are vile and mean and even down right evil.  The fact that they are mixed and presented as "the word of God" creates a kind of mindbender that really can mess people up and can even create a kind of psychological illness.

    4 hours ago, thormas said:

    Just out of curiosity who exactly are you talking about that tired to control Christianity?

    Those who are into hierarchical thinking and hierarchical ways of living. Those with control trips and who are into controlling others. Governments, religious leaderships, parents, gender dominance, people who are bent on the leader-follower mentality, instead of recognizing and getting along with other people as equals.

  8. 13 hours ago, thormas said:

    Actually we first know about him from the texts preserved in the communities down through the ages. 

     

    No, people first knew about him from his presence and the spoken words that he gave his first followers. Then people knew about him from the spoken words and presence of these followers. Today we can know about him by his spiritual presence in our lives, and the few words that are spoken about him that tell us where and when he walked this earth.

    13 hours ago, thormas said:

    And any 'few words' come from the texts - both canonical and apocrypha.

     

    The few words, "Jesus is (the) Christ", though they are written down and canonized with a lot of other stuff, can just as well be passed down orally and verbally. That's the way it was in the beginning. Is there any reason why it shouldn't still matter and pertain down to and into this present day?

  9. 13 hours ago, thormas said:

    But we were specifically talking about 'scholars' and you presented him. So not a critical biblical scholar?? 

     

     

     

    I thought we were talking about whether Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew or not.

    If you, and these scholars believe that Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew, because Paul and other Jews were apocalyptic in their thinking,... I don't see how one statement necessarily leads to and concludes the other.

    13 hours ago, thormas said:

    What people and on what do they base this opinion?

    On their own simple and inspired faith and the inspired faith of others being passed along orally and  spiritually through time and through the ages.

  10. 3 hours ago, thormas said:

    Branches or denominations, the question remains.

     

    I just found this on this subject:

    Jewish Sects of the 1st Century (1)

    Harvard’s renowned late scholar Jacob Neusner wrote in Judaism When Christianity Began, p.5, 50: “Judaism divides into Judaisms….Judaisms that flourished in Second Temple times, before 70 CE, when the Temple was destroyed.”  There were several “Judaisms” in the Holy Land.

    This two-part topic identifies seven main Jewish religious sects or groups extant in the Land in the 1st century.  The time when Jesus lived as a Jew and the temple still existed.  Part 1 discusses the Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees.  Part 2 discusses the Herodians, Zealots, Essenes, Nazarenes.

    https://bibletopicexpo.wordpress.com/2018/05/26/jewish-sects-of-the-1st-century-1/

    ---------------------------------

    I also found a thing that said there were these sects/branches, but also there were all the other regular people. It seems that the "regular people" out numbered these different groups/sects. I'm thinking that Jesus might have been talking mostly to the regular people. Paul however was a Pharisee.

  11. 2 hours ago, JosephM said:

    One definitely needs to plan ahead. My wife has her own pension and Social security plus if I were to pass she would get more SS not less. One cannot be 100% certain of the future but we have done all we can to prepare and the rest is out of our hands. Sure if she lives long enough she may have to sell the house and get something  more within her means if taxes were to increase too much. . The state you live ion matters, thats why we moved to Florida (Increases in value are limited to 3% of the previous year's assessment or the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in Florida, whichever is less. This limitation is known as the "Save Our Homes" cap. )

     

    Wow, I wish every state had those kinds of plans.

    2 hours ago, JosephM said:

    Life isn't fair but that doesn't mean people should live everyday as their last. One must be wise so that scenarios like the one's you mention are exceptions rather than the rules. Marriage is a 50/50 interest and both parties need to have a hand in their interests lest things like you mention happen while one turns a blind eye.

    People should be aware that these things can and do happen, so people can do things differently and so they don't keep happening over and over again. So many people get hurt because they are told one thing, and then get another. 

  12. 2 hours ago, thormas said:

    You have made my point: even you question if these people were scholars and you refer to their stuff as crap. It is questionable if these people are truly 'serious critical scholars.'

    Is Rohr a biblical scholar? Regardless, without the NT texts, we would not know Jesus and we would not have the view of God that is revealed by him. Without the texts, the wheel would be flat.

    You do know that the earliest Christians looked to their scriptural texts (our OT) to understand Jesus both as crucified Messiah and resurrected/exalted Lord and that they, by speaking of Jesus were telling his story and therefore beginning the oral tradition that were sources of our NT?  And the Gentiles 'had' texts, both the interpreted OT texts presented by the disciples to explain/present and defend Jesus and, of course, the disciples' preaching (again the beginnings of the NT oral traditions). So God, Jesus and the Spirit were delivered and presented to Jews and non-Jews by people, the missionaries, the disciples. 

    Was that writing or doodling? Was it historical or a literary device? You seem to be saying, therefore Jesus could write while also saying you don't know?

    I don't know if everyone would call Rohr a "scholar" or not.  He did receive his masters degree in theology from the University of Dayton in 1970. Regardless, he's a pretty bright and enlightened guy.

    ---------------------------

    The Jews passed down their oral traditions for thousands of years before they were written down. The native Americans in this country have been passing down "sacred" stories for thousands of years, and they have just become written down in this past century or two.  I know people who believe that we would still know about Jesus even if the books hadn't been preserved and canonized. Mostly we know Jesus through our faith and through his spirit given to us. All people really need is just a few words about him, just the "good news" and faith and spirit can really take us from there. When people heard the "good news" in the 1st C that was a lot of all they had, and it was something real and enough. If you don't think he has a living spirit that can reach us, then what do you believe in and what is the basis of your faith?

    ----------------------------

    Did 1st C Gentile Christians have OT texts? My understanding is that they were kept in the synagogues on scrolls and were taken out only for readings during services. They weren't in book form and copying them was a long and painstaking process. 

     

    2 hours ago, thormas said:

    Branches or denominations, the question remains.

    Plus, the apocalyptic views of Jesus, his disciples, Paul, the Pharisees and the Essenes were in agreement on the expectation of the physical Kingdom to be established by God himself. Which Jews did bot have this view in the 1st C?

    Actually, Saul/Paul was already persecuting the earliest Christians for their view of Jesus as God's 'resurrected' Messiah (and we know what the Jews expected of the Messiah). Plus, it is also apparent that the disciples, as Jews, knew of such expectations and they searched their scriptures to make sense of Jesus both in light of what seemed to be a failed mission but also their experience of his resurrection and exaltation by God (resurrection was to also mark the coming Kingdom). So did he 'paint' his ideas on Jesus or did he initially 'inherit' those ideas from the earliest followers of Jesus? And actually experts and critical scholars like Hurtado, Hengel, Ehrman and others have spoken to and shown the inheritance from the earless community.

    We don't have to 'turn to the Spirit' as his disciples (to whom he gave the spirit) preached the unlettered Jesus who as the Messiah, exalted by God upon whom they waited to establish the Kingdom as promised by God. 

    Actually without the preaching of the disciples and the devotion of the early communities, the person (Jesus) and his spirit would never have been known -  their preaching, their stories about Jesus ..............becaeme or lead to the books 😀

    I believe the Jewish people call them branches.

    Do Hurtado and Hengel state that all 1st C Jews thought alike in these matters? We are not talking about God's kingdom here, but an apocalyptic view on how this is supposed to  happen. I know that today there are many branches, at least that's what I've heard Jewish people say. How many there were back then, I don't know. Regardless, I tend to think that Jesus was able to think independently. 

    ---------------------------

    Yeah, all this preaching and teaching lead to the books. The question is, how good were/are the books?

    Maybe the book writers and people behind them were trying to get a handle on and control of Christianity before all people really started believing they were all equal, so they dumped and wrapped all this hierarchical stuff on and into the books and onto Christianity.  

  13. 34 minutes ago, JosephM said:

    I don't have insurance. I have been married 52 years. My home is paid for along with all other possesions. I have saved enough in federally insured cash to carry my wife for many years along with my investments.

     

    My mother was married for over 50 years too. She is out living him by like twenty years or more. Their house was paid for and they thought she could live as long as she wanted after he passed. They needed to use a good amount of their savings to take care of my father in his last years. When he passed she lost part of his pension and part of his social security, and the taxes on the house kept going up and up and up.

    My sister supported my brother in-law while he got his PHD and wrote his dissertation. Then she gave up her career and followed him around the country till he got tenure teaching in a collage. This took many years and several moves. Then he takes off with a younger woman, and a great career, and my sister got a minimum wage job with no insurance and no security.

    Luckily my sister and mother were able to team up and between the two of them they were able to keep my sister's house while renting out the basement. They are both ok, but it was with no thanks to their husbands or the "society"  that pushed them and kept them in these situations.

    I see so much of this. Women who are left with next to nothing while their husbands are off with 2 houses and 5 cars and who knows what else. It's wrong and it's not fair. Men are not supposed to make women's lives less safe and less secure. That's not being real men, and if they think it is their perceptions are upside down and the opposite of what is true and what is really real. 

    34 minutes ago, JosephM said:

    Me too and they are paying for it with a standard of living that has little incentive to get ahead because of taxes.

    The people I've met say that their standard of living is better than ours and that they have more security and safety and that they wouldn't give it up for nothing.

    People also need to learn to be incentivized by something besides just money. It counts up to a point, but a lot of people would be doing a lot what they do anyways. To them it's not just a job it's a vocation. In fact, if they had some real security, that they didn't need to worry about, they would be doing a lot more of it.

  14. On 8/23/2020 at 10:59 AM, thormas said:
     

    Actually not in scholarly circles for over 100 years - so not really trendy or merely the thing to say. There was no 'all of a sudden' as if this is recent discovery.

    Who exactly are you talking about - which scholars? 

    Actually in addition to our 'own intelligence' many people refer to experts to expand their knowledge, like in science, medicine, car repair, house building, exploration of the universe, economics, cooking and.............greater depth understanding of the Bible and the history of, in particular, the 1st century.

    If you can convince anyone that Jesus' world view was different than that of other Jews in the 1st C CE - I for one would be interested. Are you saying he understood the universe then in a way that we do 20 centuries later? Did he understand medicine and aliments then as medical experts do now? Plus it is at least a question (and highly doubtful) if he could write (probably not) or read and he probably only spoke Aramaic - the everyday language of his people. Sounds limited in many ways but typical for 1st C Palestinian, rural Jew. 

    I can only remember the name of one scholar, it was Young. In the late 70's early 80's I did some studying at big city libraries and ecclesiastical libraries. Some of the crap I read really made me cringe. This was before people like Spong and Ehrman and before the internet. Just recently I read someone who was claiming to be a "scholar" who said that all the books of the NT had been written before like 55 CE and that he was sure of it and all this stuff. I didn't save his name or the link, I just closed the page and moved on. I guess that people can find "scholars" to tell them what ever they want to hear no matter what it is.

    There are experts of all kinds, as I mentioned above. I kind of like Richard Rohr's idea of the "tricycle". He states that experience of God and JC and the HS are the front wheel, and to him, and myself, the more important wheel, and tradition and texts are the rear wheels. Myself, seeing that most if not all of the early Christians just got the faith, and the inspiration and the "experience" of God & & through JC, with no texts what so ever (non-Jewish people had no texts not even the OT), to myself this is of real importance and meaning.

    Could Jesus read and write? He's only depicted once as writing anything. This is in the sand, with the woman caught in adulatory, (just the woman, no man was brought forth with her). If a person can write, they can read. Stories in Luke tell of him being a very wise youth and talking and arguing with the elders in the temple at age twelve. Does this mean he could read and write? I don't know. Did he need to be able to read and write, and how important is it / was it, is another good question. Same for his followers, both in those days and at any time in terms of getting the faith and the spirit and the experience of God. Children seem to know and experience this best, and they can't really read and write that well or that often. There are NT and Gospel of Thomas verses that pretty much say that children are the "experts".

    On 8/23/2020 at 11:10 AM, thormas said:

    I'm just asking in general, the name of the gospel, not chapter and verse. 

    I have to ask on what do you base your take on Paul's world views being different than Jesus or other Jews. I'm not talking his theology about Jesus, but his worldview. Do you have examples of the different thinking among the different Jews? Do you mean their take on the Law or their world view? I'm not talking agreement on all things, I have simply said that apocalyptic views and expectations of the Kingdom in the 1st C were the same for Jesus, his disciples and Paul.........among many others.

    It is not this book or that, rather it is the person behind the book........it is always the person since there would be no book without one :+}

    My understanding of Judaism is that they don't have denominations, they have "branches".  They are all Jewish, and it's not as separate as the way we understand denominations, but they do have groups, perhaps one could call them sects, that do think differently. This is true today, I can't remember the names of them, but there is a good number of them. I believe this was true back in the 1st C too.

    Was Paul an apocalyptic Jew? Did he paint his ideas of apocalyptic Judaism on top of Jesus? Is that where we get that from instead of Jesus himself? Like we've mentioned, we don't even know if Jesus could read and write, we have to turn to his spirit inside us as best we can to find out. Perhaps we will never know for sure. Perhaps it is something we can only speculate on and the rest is left up to God/the Higher Spirit. 

    The person and his spirit would still exist, be real, and be true,... even without a book behind or on top of him 🙂 .

    23 hours ago, thormas said:

    I get that, I was simply giving the best understanding of the word, especially where it pertains to God. Also, obedience to God is also the choice for God and it is not a burden - given what obedience actually means.

    To live in love, peace and joy is to be freely obedient to God since one makes important in their life what is important to God.

    It is the same big stuff that is important in friendship.

    I myself would rather use the term 'in-tune' with God . . . but each to their own

    What do you think is the "big stuff" that is important in friendship?

  15. 23 hours ago, thormas said:
     

    Actually not in scholarly circles for over 100 years - so not really trendy or merely the thing to say. There was no 'all of a sudden' as if this is recent discovery.

    Who exactly are you talking about - which scholars? 

    Actually in addition to our 'own intelligence' many people refer to experts to expand their knowledge, like in science, medicine, car repair, house building, exploration of the universe, economics, cooking and.............greater depth understanding of the Bible and the history of, in particular, the 1st century.

    If you can convince anyone that Jesus' world view was different than that of other Jews in the 1st C CE - I for one would be interested. Are you saying he understood the universe then in a way that we do 20 centuries later? Did he understand medicine and aliments then as medical experts do now? Plus it is at least a question (and highly doubtful) if he could write (probably not) or read and he probably only spoke Aramaic - the everyday language of his people. Sounds limited in many ways but typical for 1st C Palestinian, rural Jew. 

    I can only remember the name of one scholar, it was Young. In the late 70's early 80's I did some studying at big city libraries and ecclesiastical libraries. Some of the crap I read really made me cringe. This was before people like Spong and Ehrman and before the internet. Just recently I read someone who was claiming to be a "scholar" who said that all the books of the NT had been written before like 55 CE and that he was sure of it and all this stuff. I didn't save his name or the link, I just closed the page and moved on. I guess that people can find "scholars" to tell them what ever they want to hear no matter what it is.

    There are experts of all kinds, as I mentioned above. I kind of like Richard Rohr's idea of the "tricycle". He states that experience of God and JC and the HS are the front wheel, and to him, and myself, the more important wheel, and tradition and texts are the rear wheels. Myself, seeing that most if not all of the early Christians just got the faith, and the inspiration and the "experience" of God & & through JC, with no texts what so ever (non-Jewish people had no texts not even the OT), to myself this is of real importance and meaning.

    Could Jesus read and write? He's only depicted once as writing anything. This is in the sand, with the woman caught in adulatory, (just the woman, no man was brought forth with her). If a person can write, they can read. Stories in Luke tell of him being a very wise youth and talking and arguing with the elders in the temple at age twelve. Does this mean he could read and write? I don't know. Did he need to be able to read and write, and how important is it / was it, is another good question. Same for his followers, both in those days and at any time in terms of getting the faith and the spirit and the experience of God. Children seem to know and experience this best, and they can't really read and write that well or that often.

    23 hours ago, thormas said:

    I'm just asking in general, the name of the gospel, not chapter and verse. 

    I have to ask on what do you base your take on Paul's world views being different than Jesus or other Jews. I'm not talking his theology about Jesus, but his worldview. Do you have examples of the different thinking among the different Jews? Do you mean their take on the Law or their world view? I'm not talking agreement on all things, I have simply said that apocalyptic views and expectations of the Kingdom in the 1st C were the same for Jesus, his disciples and Paul.........among many others.

    It is not this book or that, rather it is the person behind the book........it is always the person since there would be no book without one :+}

    My understanding of Judaism is that they don't have denominations, they have "branches".  They are all Jewish, and it's not as separate as the way we understand denominations, but they do have groups, perhaps one could call them sects, that do think differently. This is true today, I can't remember the names of them, but there is a good number of them. I believe this was true back in the 1st C too.

    The person and his spirit would still exist, be real, and be true,... even without a book behind or on top of him 🙂 .

    22 hours ago, thormas said:

    I get that, I was simply giving the best understanding of the word, especially where it pertains to God. Also, obedience to God is also the choice for God and it is not a burden - given what obedience actually means.

    To live in love, peace and joy is to be freely obedient to God since one makes important in their life what is important to God.

    It is the same big stuff that is important in friendship.

    I myself would rather use the term 'in-tune' with God . . . but each to their own

    What do you think is the "big stuff" that is important in friendship?

  16. 23 hours ago, JosephM said:

    Don't know what you mean by fine print?

    If i thought Europe or Canada was a better place to live than the US ..... i would move there.  What i have learned from those countries is that my family and i prefer to live in this great country of opportunity in spite of some peoples perception that the grass is somehow greener in the other country.

    By fine print I mean; make sure that your spouse and or family will really be taken care of if you pass on. Sometimes they make you think that everything will be fine and fall into place, when the truth is that it is not and does not.

    I've worked with people both from Canada and Germany. Both groups of people have told me that they think they have it better than we do. They work fewer hours, they have guaranteed healthcare, (this helps them not be so chained to 1 job and corporation), they have guaranteed  childcare, (don't need to worry if they will be able to take care of their children).

    The folks I met from Germany told me that they had a 35 hr. work week, and 6 weeks vacation. This would make for a lot less burnout and even fewer heart attacks. It also creates more jobs, for every 7 people who aren't working those last 5 hrs. there's one more 35 hr. job available for someone else. Women get 3 months maternity leave with full pay and then 2 years leave with 1/3rd of their salary and then get their jobs back. (don't see why this last part couldn't be split between both parents, if they so choose, with the mother prob. taking the 1st year). Germany btw is the richest country in the Euro.

    In France I know that they need real grounds for firing someone, and they can't just get rid of them when their retirement becomes vested or something.

    ------------------------

    Back in the 50's and early 60's we really did have "the best country in the world". Yeah it was just for white people and men only breadwinners, but all the same it might have been the first time in the history of the world that so many had so much and so many actually had a decent living standard. I love the 'American Dream' in it's different shapes and forms. I wish we could return to the 40 or even 60 hr. family, with 2 parents splitting the work week and the house/home work, but the rich make more if they can exploit more people, so there it is. "It is what it is".

    -------------------------

    A lot of people choose to change a country, the US, from within. Believe it or not they do have some real patriotism, part of which is to make things even better and better and better. After all, isn't that part of being an American?

    Also it's not that easy to leave. Other countries have citizen requirements, just like we do. it also takes money and leaving friends and family.

    I don't think it's very patriotic to tell people to just leave. Patriotism is making things as good as possible and not being stuck in the past, but keep rising to meet the dream.

  17. On 8/23/2020 at 12:36 AM, Pipiripi said:

    You don't understand the scriptures. Jesus have says, what to do on Sabbath. Or what can we do on the Sabbath day. Read Revelation 12:17 and 14:12. Are you saying that Paul didn't keep the Sabbath day?

    Here are two verses from the Pauline letters about the Sabbath:, There might be more, I'm not sure.

     

    Colossians 2:16

    https://www.biblehub.com/colossians/2-16.htm

    Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
     

    Romans 14:5

    https://www.biblehub.com/romans/14-5.htm

    In the same way, some think one day is more holy than another day, while others think every day is alike. You should each be fully convinced that whichever day you choose is acceptable.
     

  18. 2 hours ago, thormas said:

    It's not pop, trendy or group think. The work of serious scholars is work in ever sense of the word. And for those non-scholars who have an interest in such learning, it is also work. Trendy is easy and doesn't demand much from anyone. And if you're talking about Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, that is not just a present, now a days, understanding of him. 

    As I have said, I too think there was more to the man but he was a man, limited in many ways as are we all. However, he was not limited in what is most important. In any time, one can decide for love, become its embodiment and be a beacon, a hope, a way for others. Jesus was such a man and is, therefore, rightly called the first born Son of God.

    All I know is that no one used to say that about Jesus. All of a sudden it became pop, and trendy and the thing to say to make a person look intelligent, & then everyone was saying it.

    I've encountered "serious" scholars that have been at it for decades. Some of them have a lot of good insights and info. that they pass along and others, not so much. Most of them are a mixed package. For myself right now it seems to be about how much of a mix of what and what are they conveying, (to use the words of one of the early church fathers, "mix of truth and bile")? I'm finding that I don't agree with anyone completely, and that's just life. Wish I did, but I don't, so I just have to deal with it and try to figure it out. All I have is my own intelligence,  (just the same as anyone else), so I do the best, hopefully the very best) I can with that.

    I myself would have a hard time calling Jesus "limited in many ways". But we all have our own right to our own take on things. After all we do live in free countries in this respect.

    2 hours ago, thormas said:
     

    No I'm asking what gospel you are talking about and when was it written and since they are all 40-70 years after the death of Jesus, then they are living at a time when the Kingdom, that was to begin in the lifetime of the disciples, has not occurred. Thus there is a change of emphasis in the gospels. This has nothing to do with Paul. 

    Paul's world view was the world view of Jesus and his disciples - they were contemporaries. You are denying the Jewish worldview and expectation that Jesus, a 1st C Jew shared. 

    I agree there are difference from Jesus to Paul but there are also differences from Jesus to each gospel writer. 

    I'm not good at remembering chapter and verse, if I have time, I'll  look them up.

    I don't see Paul's world view as necessarily being that of Jesus or that of all 1st C Jews. One can have a bunch of 1st C Jews thinking one way, and another bunch thinking another way, (from what I've learned, they didn't all think the same, then or now). There can even be an individual who thinks their own, independent way thinking, and Jesus could quite possibly been one of these.

    I agree with you that there are differences between Jesus and Paul and also differences between Jesus and each gospel writer. So what do we have left, but the spirit of Jesus within us. (& no book 🙂 ) 

     

    1 hour ago, thormas said:

    To love God is to love and do what one wants (i.e. Love) which is also what is important to God (i.e. love): this is obedience. Some don't like the word but there it is. As an example any Lover who is not 'obedient' to his/her Beloved is not planning on a long or happy relationship (whether or not they use the word obedient or not).  Actually, many people today recognize this truth: "a happy wife makes a happy life" and vice versa. 😀

    And when we're talking about, for example the husband making what is important to his wife, important to him we're talking the big stuff. He doesn't have to take up pilates or become a doctor if she is, she doesn't have to love to watch comic book movies or be a teacher is he is - but this stuff is small or smaller potatoes. It is the big stuff that makes or breaks a life and a marriage.

    If one is in tune or in harmony with God, then one is in tune or in harmony with Love - one is, therefore, obedient to Love. 

    Myself, I can do without the word "obedience", but each to our own I guess. To me, one just lives in Love and peace and joy, and there's no "obedience".

    Can I ask, what do you mean by "the big stuff that makes or breaks a life and a marriage"?

    ----------------------------

    Edit> found at least 2 of those verses. Different versions put it in different words

    https://www.biblehub.com/luke/17-20.htm

    https://www.biblehub.com/luke/17-21.htm

     

  19. 4 minutes ago, thormas said:

    No, I don't take literally the immaculate conception/the virgin birth. So no connection to 'without sin.' I believe he was born just like us and that he was just like us in all ways. I further believe that he, probably because he was born into 'the people of God' and learned from them, that he developed an incredible consciousness or awareness of God as Abba and he was (became) obedient to God (obedience means what is important to the other, you make important to you). It is this (i.e. Love) that made Jesus 'special' and different - different not in kind but in degree, the degree that he loved and was selfless (thus sinless). We have through the ages considered so much sin that never was. having said that, I have no idea if Jesus ever did anything wrong in his life but being sinless is not about particular moments but what has become and who one is 'in a lifetime.' 

    Again, human being don't know the future. We might be able to 'read the signs of the time' and have an idea that if one continues down a particular road then what is likely to happen is X. But that is knowing the future. 

    I think obedience is completely misunderstood. It is, I think an amazing word and idea. If one is friends with someone, then the friends if true are obedient to one another: what is important to my friend I make important to me and I do not violate the friendship. Some people have issues with the marriage vow that includes obedience. I think both partners should make such a promise. To be obedient to God is to simply make important in your life what is important to God.........and that simply is to Love. And it is in loving that we become sinless, children of God and the incarnation of God.To know God is to love and that is obedience - given this definition. And it is done gladly and happily ........out of love.

    I'm not aware of the kind of competition you describe and it seems a bit ridiculous on it face, doesn't it?

     

     

    For myself, what God wants me to do is also, plain and simple, what I want to be doing. It's just as much happily going along with God as with my true christ/godish self. Yeah, God shows me/us what this/these things are and how to go about things through our insight and understanding, but there is no conflict here and no "obedience". To Love God is to Love doing what one wants to do and one just wants to do what one can do inside of God. One doesn't want to do anything outside of God or outside of the holy spirit of things. 

    I don't really think that anyone should be "obedient" to anyone. Yeah, sometimes one does what the other person wants to do, when they don't really want to. But that's not "obedience", that's just being nice. If the other person doesn't do the same in return, then people have to work that out. With God it's different, one just needs to be inline and in-tune with God and there is no conflict, one is just merrily going along doing what one wants to do anyways, and they end up being the same thing. It is important to realize where the higher insight and inspiration is coming from, that's just being honest with oneself and giving real credit where it's due. Being In-tune with God and in harmony with God is a lot better than being "obedient" to God. To me it just makes a lot more positive sense.

  20. 12 minutes ago, thormas said:

    If one wants to read for devotional purposes or spiritual understanding, it actually is not very complicated at all. 

    However if one (also) approaches the Bible as literature and theology and seeks to get a handle on early Christianity and the historical Jesus, it seems like a scholar is helpful in that endeavor.As Ehrman has said if you go for a medical procedure, you want an expert so too, if one wants to 'study' the Bible, it only makes sense to go to an expert. 

    From what I have read, in the 1st C CE, the apocalyptic expectation of the physical Kingdom was 'the' understanding. Other than that, I don't know what Jews you're talking about.

    If one looks to Paul to understand Jesus - it is helpful to see how much Paul got from the earliest communities of the followers ofJesus and it is considerable. In addition, the only Jesus we get is filtered through the Gospels and they present 4 portraits ofJesus. If there are differences between the pseudo Paul and Paul it would be helpful to have some idea of when the pseudo Paul was written. If it is after Paul then that might coincide with a softening of apocalyptic beliefs because they were living in the time when there was no Kingdom that had been established.

    If Jesus knew more then we're back to a Jesus who was not like us, therefore not really human.Again I don't disagree with what you are saying about the Kingdom but it is doubtful if the historical Jesus of 30 CE would've agreed with you.

    The apocalyptic understanding was that with the fall of the other kingdoms, God would establish his Kingdom on earth - it has not happened.

     

    I am ver positive, I am simply differentiating between what I believe about the Kingdom in the 21st C and what we know Jews, including Jesus, his disciples and Paul, believed or expected in the 1st C.

    I know that this is the pop, trendy, group-think, modern way of understanding Jesus nower days, even among scholars. I myself just don't think it's true. I think there was and is more to the man. 

  21. 1 hour ago, thormas said:

    Like us in all ways but sin (the degree of our selfishness). And we do not know the future or how things will unfold. He was not best in his knowledge in that he had the worldview of a 1C CE Jew. No best in knowing what cause certain aliments or illnesses. However, I do agree he was 'best' in his obedience to God and his embedding the Love that was God. Competition? 

     

    "Like us in all ways but sin." I haven't heard that line in a long time. Can I ask, do you believe in the virgin birth/conception? Is that how he was so free of the human "sinful" nature, or do you believe he had the same nature, but didn't sin and was able to overcome and not actually commit/do any sins?

    I myself think that he might have had a bit more going for him than the world view of a 1C CE Jew. Nothing against them, I just think he knew and was aware of more. Did he know the future, in full or in part(s)? I don't know. He might have had a clue or two like we all do, if you do x, y is probably going to happen. If you say "all people are created equal", Rome or the Jewish leaders, or The 1776 English crown, or the hyper-hierarchists, or the fundamentalists are going to get mad at you. So what does one do then? Stick to it and keep bringing up the idea again and again until people get it I guess.

    I'm not much for "obedience" to God. I'm also not much for the 'commandment' to love God. To me, if one knows God, one loves God, it's that simple. If one knows God and loves God then it's not "obedience". One just wants to do the right thing(s) gladly and happily, and with an open and smiling heart, and there's no real "obedience" tacked on to it.  Of course I've never been asked to go to a cross, or have my throat slit for my beliefs, but I still think there might be more to it.

    Competition? I've known some people who seem to go into competition with Christ. It's like it's about, 'who's the greatest person ' in town or in all eternity for that matter. They are always trying to bring Christ down and or build themselves up. Maybe so they can take Christ's or God's place in other people's lives, I don't know. Maybe they had a mommy or daddy who put them first, before even god, and they want and expect that from everyone else and don't get why they are not getting it. I don't know, but I've seen it happen.

    1 hour ago, thormas said:

    Again, what gospels for the verse, when were those gospels written and they were all after decades of waiting for the Kingdom and began to move to a 'delayed end-time.' It seems that the more genuine sayings are the truly apocalyptic ones. 

     

    If you're not looking to the gospels then you are looking to the Pauline letters. That's fine, but then you are placing Paul and Paul's world view onto Christ. They are not the same thing or the same person. Paul was brilliant at sometimes and not so brilliant at other times. He doesn't and shouldn't speak for Christ in all things.

    1 hour ago, thormas said:

    Jesus saw the beginning of what was basically a new religion, Christianity? Jesus saw the Temple being destroyed in the year it was destroyed? 

     

    I don't know if or how much Jesus saw into the future. I don't know what God showed him or told him.

    1 hour ago, thormas said:

    Where does Jesus talk about the Kingdom breaking, fading and break-in in again? If this is your present take, I get it but if we're talking about the Jesus of the 1st C - it's just not there, it seems. 

     

    Just like I said above, I don't know how much Jesus knew or was told by God.

    If it's true, he might have known that we evolved instead of came into being through the Genesis stories, and he just chose not to tell everyone, cause he knew they couldn't handle it and wouldn't believe it. Plus it wasn't that important for their "salvation" and understanding of eternity, just like their understanding that the earth is round or that it revolves around the sun wasn't/isn't.

    1 hour ago, thormas said:

    Jesus could have been the epitome of humanity, the fullest incarnation or embodiment of God - however he was still a man, limited in so many ways - except the one that counts most.

    Don't know what his limits were are weren't. Maybe someday we'll find out.

    Maybe it's not our business and we just get to know what we need to know, (for where we're at) and that's it.

  22. 1 hour ago, thormas said:

    If that is opinion, fine. However, it is not backed up in biblical studies by the experts - and if we're talking about the texts, I go with the experts. Plus did the 1C CE Jews talk about 'experiencing eternity' - would that have even made sense to them? Or did they believe in a physical, earthly Kingdom that was imminent? 

    As to the verses you mentioned, it would have to be asked in what gospel are they found. And of course all of the gospels were written with 4 to 7 decades of believing that Jesus was the messiah. 

    I get a little tired of foo-foo "scholars and experts" sometimes, (though at other times I do appreciate them). It shouldn't be so incredibly complicated and people shouldn't need 3 PHDs to understand the basic faith and love in Christ. They shouldn't even have to read and write and a whole bunch of other technical stuff that seems to be spread all over and under the life and eternity of Christ.

    It's my understanding that some Jews believe in eternity and some don't. Which are which, I couldn't tell you.

    If you are going to get your understanding of Christ just from Paul, then you are layering Paul onto Christ. Just because he was the first writer in the cannon, doesn't mean he was always right, or always knew everything. There's the difference in his letters and the pseudo-Paul letter(s) that the reresection had already begun, or that people were already stepping into eternity, or whether this happened later, or even and including after death.

    I just tend to think that Jesus knew more. He had some idea that the coming of the kingdom was not this once and for all time apocalyptic event. If one looks at it from one point of view, one could say that when one passes into Christ, that one passes into another spiritual "dimension",  where eternity really is inside and all around one.

    Looking at it from another point of view, one could say that "apocalypses" have been happening in some form or other all through out history. Whether it's the destruction of the 2nd temple, the fall of Rome, the black plague, the world wars, covid, etc. I don't know how it fits together and probably never will. 

    I do try to focus on the positive side, for myself it just seems better and makes my mind clearer. 

  23. 49 minutes ago, thormas said:

    Or perhaps the ideal is if one always lives that dedication and spirituality. 

    I totally agree with you

    Though it is sometimes nice to have a full day of rest with NO work. Just to restore and rejuvenate.

    Even God took a day to rest, . .  . sometimes I wonder what that feels like.  

  24. On 8/20/2020 at 3:59 AM, Pipiripi said:

    The fourth Commandment, the seventh day Sabbath. Keep it Holy my friend 

    Would you say that to all our nurses and doctors and firefighters? 

    Those who risk their lives in order to save and protect the rest of us. Or would you just tell them, after all they give, that they are just going to hell?

    Better to do what Paul said, everyone can choose which day they want to dedicate to God and spirituality.

  25. 18 hours ago, thormas said:

    And now the trumpster says all he know is that the crazy QAnon like him and he appreciates it. I bet he thinks these crazies are 'fine people' just like the white supremacist groups.

    Oh Gawd! I hadn't even heard of this QAnon thing. Went and googled it. Oh Gawd . ! . . 

    Don't know what to think of it yet.

    Hope it just goes away.

    Oh Gawd!

    It reminds me just a bit of nazism. Perhaps this is what starts to happen when one group starts to feel overwhelmed by another. - Crazy stuff - There are much more sensible and forthright ways of dealing with it than what ever this stuff is. This earth is big enough for all of us, whether we want to culturally-centric or integrated or any and all combinations of the two. 

    Oh Gawd! I really didn't need to know about this Q thing right now. This world has enough problems. Oh Gawd! Hopefully Gawd can handle some of it so we don't have to, or so we don't even have to look at it. Oh Gawd!

    -------------------

    Edit> Sounds like a form of al-anon with the 'al' taken out and a 'Q" put in. Maybe they are recovering from something, . . .  super-selfie-ism ? ... ?

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service