Jump to content

NT Wright on women preachers


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Elen1107 said:

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.

The spirit of Christ was not in the Jews that the disciples preached to who eventually accepted Jesus as the Christ. Nor was that spirit in the many Gentiles. If it was then they would have accepted Jesus without one word form the disciples. But they didn't.- as did the Jews with Jesus in his lifetime, they first had to hear and then they responded to the word and thus accepted Jesus n his lifetime or, later, the Christ of Faith preached by the disciples. 

The disciples went out to them and announced the good news of Jesus the Christ. Many, not all, accepted the witness of the disciples and they learned of this Jesus and how he 'fulfilled the Jewish scriptures' and thereby brought salvation to them all. Then the spirit of Christ began to 'manifest' in them, in their actions, in their lives. And the rest is history.

 

Even with Jesus himself in his lifetime, people were 'in the confusing muddle' with some simply rejecting him, some just unable to accept. So too his disciples were rejected and/or misunderstood, so too it continues today. There is no easy way.

 

Edited by thormas
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 407
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Time to throw AJ into all this.  

Forgiveness is the only way to rid yourself of resentment.  It does nothing for the other, but everything for the self.

I agree.

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.

Edited by Elen1107
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Elen1107 said:

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.

I've read Spong and don't always agree with him. I was simply interested in what you found that is worthy of the term bile. 

I believe Jesus was wrong on his apocalyptic view of the timing and kind of Kingdom as seems obvious given that time and history have moved on. I do not believe he was only an apocalyptic prophet. And, I also do not believe he was wrong in his knowing and living God - which is the more important matter. I do agree with a different understanding that the Kingdom is both present or begun and 'yet to be.' I don't agree with apocalyptic thinking (our worldview and religious thinking has evolved), I'm simply saying that this is what Jesus preached and there is considerable 'evidence' for this position. I never said he was dumb, nor do I think in those terms about Jesus or others - he was a man of his time, a Jew of his time and he was in agreement with this thinking which was prevalent in his time and prophesied in his scriptures.

I was waiting for examples of "Jews or a whole lot of other people" and what they believed. You say someone is putting words into Jesus' mouth and I was waiting for some basis for that. But I understand issues of time and interest for such discussions. So all is fine.

 

____________________

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.

So over and out and we move on 🤐

 

Edited by thormas
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

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.

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

For me, unless we're differentiating the God who is love from self-centeredness, there is no first or second concerning putting God or people first. The 2 great commandments are one: to love God or to put God first is to love others and to loves others is to love God or simply to put Love first. It is all one act.

Desim, the watchmaker idea of God, wherein he creates and leaves us 'ticking' on our own, conceives of a very different God than theism (or better panentheism). Panentheism conceives of  God immanent and active in creation (not removed from it). 

 

I have already made the case for apocalyptic thinking in the 1st C Judaism and with Jesus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

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.

However the question is do we take Luke, writing 50+ years after the death of Jesus, literally. I have read studies that indicated how very few read in 1st C Palestine. I lean to the probability that Jesus and his disciples could not write and the high likelihood that they couldn't read. Who knows??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service