Controversial Christian theology

[Rhyfelwyr]

This is spilling over from another thread, in which Tribesman referenced a remark I once made on how according to the scripture, Christians will be hated by the world. To stop derailing that thread, my next post would have been:

So do you think Christians should not have children?

Unlike todays fundamentalists, I am not waiting for the rapture, and I hold a historicist position on the tribulation, as did Luther, Calvin and all the Reformers before US Evangelicals decided to drop their ideas. So, I believe that the tribulation is a gradual event that has been going on for nearly the past 2,000 years. Also, they were partial-preterists, so they regarded the more specific bits of the prophecy as referring to the events which took place in 70AD (like Mark 13:17 as you mentioned above) - not the end of the tribulation, but a sort of shadow of what was to come.

So, Mark 13:13 can be applied to Christians today, and all parts are of some symbolic significance of the tribulation. Why do you insist on making such a fundamentalist(/literalist?) reading of it?

Hey John 15 is good , it starts out good dies off a bit in the middle and really comes back with flying colours at the end, I like the bit about being thrown out of temple because people who claim to know god and speak of god don't know god...bit of a connundrum there.

I can't find this part with the temple at the end of John 15. Also, please address the verse I quoted. Jesus said "I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you", you tell me I'm talking rubbish when I say the world will hate Christians...

I may also use this thread for other controversial topics which I can think of...

[Tribesman]

How can the world hate christians?
if something is not part of another thing how can the two relate ,
if one does not acknowledge the existance of the other how can it hold any feelings for it.
if something is never seen or heard how can it be rejected.

I can't find this part with the temple at the end of John 15.

At the end of 15 is 16

[Rhyfelwyr]

How can the world hate christians?
if something is not part of another thing how can the two relate ,
if one does not acknowledge the existance of the other how can it hold any feelings for it.
if something is never seen or heard how can it be rejected.

This play on words from Zain's thread (IIRC this is what it is, can't be bothered rereding that thread though) doesn't really fit to well here. I guess what you are getting at is that Christians are said to be 'not of this world', so how can the world hate them? Well, I suppose it is because though Christ's kingdom is spiritual, we are still stuck in the flesh here on earth (remembers Paul talks about the conflict between the two), and so people will hate us for not taking part in their carnal lifestyles. And people just generally don't like what's different.

At the end of 15 is 16

So the bit you mentioned isn't in the end of the 15th chapter then is it. Kind of important to the context that's it's from a whole new chapter, don't you think?

Although even if it was at the end of the 15th chapter, I don't really see what it's got to do with my point about people hating Christians.

Maybe you'll eventually get round to addressing the bit where Jesus says "I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you"...

[Tribesman]

So the bit you mentioned isn't in the end of the 15th chapter then is it. Kind of important to the context that's it's from a whole new chapter, don't you think?

Look at the structure of 15 &16 then come back about context

[Idaho]

Getting literal about the bible... I don't know where to start with that.

How come christian fundamentalists don't follow biblical dietary rules?

[Tribesman]

How come christian fundamentalists don't follow biblical dietary rules?

Some do.
It wasn't that long ago there was a fundy on this forum explaining why we shouldn't eat lobster.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Getting literal about the bible... I don't know where to start with that.

How come christian fundamentalists don't follow biblical dietary rules?

because the New Testemant absolves Christians of those rules, several times and most notably in Acts.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Look at the structure of 15 &16 then come back about context

I still don't see what it has to do with what we were originally talking about.

You said my ideas were not in the scripture, and yet Jesus seems to plainly state that "I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you".

I don't see why this is even such a crazy idea, obviously people are not going to like what we stand for.

[Beskar]

because the New Testemant absolves Christians of those rules, several times and most notably in Acts.

The word of God contradicts itself? :o

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The word of God contradicts itself? :o

No, the word of Man does, genius.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The word of God contradicts itself? :o

No, the word of Man does, genius.

This isn't the issue when it comes to dietary laws. They were part of the ceremonial law which God only ever stated that he gave specifically to ethnic Israel.

[Kadagar_AV]

This isn't the issue when it comes to dietary laws. They were part of the ceremonial law which God only ever stated that he gave specifically to ethnic Israel.

Can anyone explain why the jews are not allowed to eat some stuff, while the rest of us are A-OK to eat it.

I mean, it is the same god, isn't it?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Can anyone explain why the jews are not allowed to eat some stuff, while the rest of us are A-OK to eat it.

I mean, it is the same god, isn't it?

The Jews don't follow the New Testament.

Dietary laws are Old Testament. In the NT, Paul absolves Christians from having to follow these laws: 'no food is impure of itself'. I think it is in one of his letters, I am too lazy to look it up.

Edit: there are several new covenants, with a different relationship between God and Man / Jews / Christians. There is a progression in the Bible.

[Kadagar_AV]

Ok... So... God first said we are not supposed to do some stuff, and then he changed his mind?

Just to be clear....

[Sigurd]

Not so much changing his mind.
It's all in the Old Testament - the Jews not worthy of living a higher law (the golden calf incident) and therefore punished to live a lesser law with many strict rules to prepare them for the Messiah, or Jesus if you want.

[Kadagar_AV]

Not so much changing his mind.
It's all in the Old Testament - the Jews not worthy of living a higher law (the golden calf incident) and therefore punished to live a lesser law with many strict rules to prepare them for the Messiah, or Jesus if you want.

Would this not make Jews second rate human beings, in the perspective of this religion?

[Sigurd]

Would this not make Jews second rate human beings, in the perspective of this religion?

Not at all... God chose them as his elect people. But being elect brings responsibility. Disobeying brings consequences. It does not take 40 years to travel from Egypt to Canaan.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This isn't the issue when it comes to dietary laws. They were part of the ceremonial law which God only ever stated that he gave specifically to ethnic Israel.

I refer you to ->

Not so much changing his mind.
It's all in the Old Testament - the Jews not worthy of living a higher law (the golden calf incident) and therefore punished to live a lesser law with many strict rules to prepare them for the Messiah, or Jesus if you want.

Exactly, the point is made several times that the Law of Moses is not the Law of God; hence the "Think not that I come to change the Law" section in the Sermon on the Mount.

Would this not make Jews second rate human beings, in the perspective of this religion?

No, it would make them dissobediant to God, exactly the same as any other non-Christian.

[Kadagar_AV]

Not at all... God chose them as his elect people. But being elect brings responsibility. Disobeying brings consequences. It does not take 40 years to travel from Egypt to Canaan.

Oh, so the jews are more like the cool people in gods eyes?

Where does that leave christians?

Sorry for my ignorance, just here to learn...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh, so the jews are more like the cool people in gods eyes?

Where does that leave christians?

Sorry for my ignorance, just here to learn...

Well, I think there is a bias here. Obviously, Jesus is a Jew in a Jewish contexts, so we picked up their writings. However, just because the priests told the Jews they were God's chosen people doesn't necessarily make it true; and even if it is they haven't fared better (or worse) because of it.

In Christian Theology the Jews are the people who killed Christ, and their descendants are those who still refuse to accept him. This is the scriptural view, and it was only dropped by the Catholic Church because of the Holocaust.

[Kadagar_AV]

Well, I think there is a bias here. Obviously, Jesus is a Jew in a Jewish contexts, so we picked up their writings. However, just because the priests told the Jews they were God's chosen people doesn't necessarily make it true; and even if it is they haven't fared better (or worse) because of it.

In Christian Theology the Jews are the people who killed Christ, and their descendants are those who still refuse to accept him. This is the scriptural view, and it was only dropped by the Catholic Church because of the Holocaust.

I cant help but hear the theme song from Benny Hill as I read this...

[Rhyfelwyr]

I refer you to ->

Exactly, the point is made several times that the Law of Moses is not the Law of God; hence the "Think not that I come to change the Law" section in the Sermon on the Mount.

Indeed, the ceremonial law served to point to redemption in Christ (Hebrews 7-11 etc), since people were themselves incapable of living by the true moral law.

Are we arguing here.... I think we would agree that this Old Covenant with it's dietary laws etc was made specifically with the nation of Israel?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Indeed, the ceremonial law served to point to redemption in Christ (Hebrews 7-11 etc), since people were themselves incapable of living by the true moral law.

Are we arguing here.... I think we would agree that this Old Covenant with it's dietary laws etc was made specifically with the nation of Israel?

Well we are and we aren't (arguing), so everything is normal.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well we are and we aren't (arguing), so everything is normal.

That's alright then.

[Papewaio]

Well, I think there is a bias here. Obviously, Jesus is a Jew in a Jewish contexts, so we picked up their writings. However, just because the priests told the Jews they were God's chosen people doesn't necessarily make it true; and even if it is they haven't fared better (or worse) because of it.

In Christian Theology the Jews are the people who killed Christ, and their descendants are those who still refuse to accept him. This is the scriptural view, and it was only dropped by the Catholic Church because of the Holocaust.

Bit more then that. A political unit who were Jewish voted to kill Christ. How many of Christ early followers were Jewish and how many of his disciples were as well.

Also in Scripture the view is that Jews are the roots and Christian's the branches of the same tree.

If one is to accept the NT then one has to accept that the OT was correct within its time period, so Christians should accept that, until at least the coming of Christ, Jews were God's chosen people.

=][=

As for dietary restrictions one can look at how lethal shell fish and pork is in the desert sun so it is a no brainer to not eat it.

OR

Also in a PC context as far as OT vs NT being correct, JC is the patch for the human soul. And having a new OS means being able to access new things.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Bit more then that. A political unit who were Jewish voted to kill Christ. How many of Christ early followers were Jewish and how many of his disciples were as well.

Well, no, because logically all the Jewish followers of Christ converted and became Christian, thereby ceasing to be Jewish by religion. Ergo, modern Jews would be decended from the "political unit" as you call it.

Also in Scripture the view is that Jews are the roots and Christian's the branches of the same tree.

Except the yeast of the Saduccees and the Pharasees will not rise, they are barren ground. It would be better to say that Christianity is a cutting from the tree that (is/was) Judaism.

If one is to accept the NT then one has to accept that the OT was correct within its time period, so Christians should accept that, until at least the coming of Christ, Jews were God's chosen people.

Why must I accept the validity of the Old Testemant? Should I stone adulterers and force pregnant women to drink water and ash? Given that the Old Testemant is just as broken as the New Testemant in places, are you suggesting I should accept the whole thing? After all, Christians have never accepted the "whole" Old Testemant, what you know as the OT is a selection made by Augustine and Jerome.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The NT is the fullfilment of the OT. All the fancy ceremonial laws given to the Jews were there to point to Christ. The story of Israel being led from bondage to the promised land is the story of the salvation of every individual Christian.

All this is there in the NT (don't make me look it up!).

And on the original topic of the thread... anyone else got any other thoughts on why what I said was so crazy and counts as "scipture" and not scripture?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The NT is the fullfilment of the OT. All the fancy ceremonial laws given to the Jews were there to point to Christ. The story of Israel being led from bondage to the promised land is the story of the salvation of every individual Christian.

All this is there in the NT (don't make me look it up!).

And on the original topic of the thread... anyone else got any other thoughts on why what I said was so crazy and counts as "scipture" and not scripture?

I want you to look it up. While I appreciate the alegorical interpretion of the Old Testemant I'm not convinced it has to be right.

[Papewaio]

Well, no, because logically all the Jewish followers of Christ converted and became Christian, thereby ceasing to be Jewish by religion. Ergo, modern Jews would be decended from the "political unit" as you call it.

I very much doubt that all Jews are descended from the ones who voted to get Jesus on the cross...

Except the yeast of the Saduccees and the Pharasees will not rise, they are barren ground. It would be better to say that Christianity is a cutting from the tree that (is/was) Judaism.

Still descended from the same root stock.

Why must I accept the validity of the Old Testemant? Should I stone adulterers and force pregnant women to drink water and ash? Given that the Old Testemant is just as broken as the New Testemant in places, are you suggesting I should accept the whole thing? After all, Christians have never accepted the "whole" Old Testemant, what you know as the OT is a selection made by Augustine and Jerome.

"OT was correct within its time period"

IMDHO OT vs NT cannon is like discussing Star Trek phasors vs Star Wars lightsabers. Fun but not actually of much use.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I very much doubt that all Jews are descended from the ones who voted to get Jesus on the cross...

Not litterally, but philosophically speaking you are a Jew and then Jesus comes along and you either follow him or stone him as a heretic.

Still descended from the same root stock.

This is only relevant if you consider that both religions remain wholly valid and one has not superceeded the other.

"OT was correct within its time period"

IMDHO OT vs NT cannon is like discussing Star Trek phasors vs Star Wars lightsabers. Fun but not actually of much use.

How is this an appropriate example.

OT says you can get divorced, NT says not. OT says "eye for an eye", NT says "turn the other cheek".

How is the comparison not relevant, or more accurately, how can you defend the defunct canon?

If you insist on making geek references: It's like the history of Boba Fett before and after Episode II, we used to think we knew some of his history because novel writers told it, then Lucas came along and said, "no, this is how it happened".