The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 150

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

"I have seen in the last week much ugly use of religion for chest thumping and blaming 'ragheads' and even blaming our decadence for the events of the last week. I would rather that we continue here, respectful of our unity in citizenship, in displaying how religion can be talked about without veering off into ugliness." (SoothingDave, 9/19/01)

Threads 1-99

Thread 100	Thread 101	Thread 102	Thread 103	Thread 104	Thread 105	Thread 106	Thread 107
Thread 108	Thread 109	Thread 110	Thread 111	Thread 112	Thread 113	Thread 114	Thread 115
Thread 116	Thread 117	Thread 118	Thread 119	Thread 120	Thread 121	Thread 122	Thread 123
Thread 124	Thread 125	Thread 126	Thread 127	Thread 128	Thread 129	Thread 130	Thread 131
Thread 132	Thread 133	Thread 134	Thread 135	Thread 136	Thread 137	Thread 138	Thread 139
Thread 140	Thread 141	Thread 142	Thread 143	Thread 144	Thread 145	Thread 146	Thread 147
Thread 148

The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 149

[SoothingDave]

I have a doctrinal question that basically got me shunned from a supposed protestant church when I dared ask it. I was told that unless I accepted the pastor’s authority and paid tithes to the church I was going to go to hell.

Did you know that in Germany (and I'm sure in other European countries) if you're registered with a Church, they take your tithe right out of your paycheck? Amazing, huh?

We Americans like to control our own giving and certainly nobody likes to be browbeaten by their pastor for more money. (How he would know your income is another question.) In my estimation of a true Church nothing should be required of you to give. Of course recognizing that we owe all to God in the first place, He is the rightful owner of everything, our giving to good causes including the Church should be generous.

Is this a thread where someone can explain apparent contradictions in scripture without condemning me for asking?

This is a thread where you can get a number of different views on almost any subject. From the strictly traditional small "o" orthodox Christian to the off-the-wall "look what I found in my Bible" style. Please ask away.

(And there ain't many who've been here for long without being called a heretic once or twice. You get used to it. :-) )

SD

[dadwags]

Ref #16
That,s why you are Jewish and not Christian ,but we'll keep a light on, in case you ever decide to come home .
Come to think of it, if/when you do "come home", we can chalk up another miracle . (0_0)

[SoothingDave]

also SD, what would your response be if tomorrow the Catholic Church decided to ordain female Bishops and Priests. Would you accept it because the Church is to be obeyed? Or would you question this decision??

If you question it, then my question to you is, why? Why would you question it??

You really don't understand the idea of an infallible Church. You might as well ask what I would do if tomorrow the Church announced that this "Jesus thing" was just a lark. "Everyone go back to being Jews."

Won't happen. Can't happen. Try to understand that for a minute.

SD

[dadwags]

Ref Th 150, #17
How do YOU know that Eusebius KNEW that hanan painted the picture and claimed otherwise ? I never knew that eusebius made such claims . (of course, I am not really familiar with Eusebius . Is there a website reference to his works ?

[SoothingDave]

The covenant with Israel does not depend upon the veracity of any particular miracle story; the "new covenant" of Christianity does. Scripture aside, I find the strict monotheism of Judaism to be much more logical than the Christian notions of trinity and incarnation.

Are you serious? I realize that Christianity does indeed hinge on one event (or two, the Incarnation and the Resurrection) more than Judaism does. But

But

Are you saying that when you have the Passover, to recall the great work God did in bringing His people out, that it doesn't matter if it ever really happened?

That it's OK cause that's the sort of thing God would do, even if He didn't in this case?

If the Resurrection didn't happen the Eucharist is a farce. If the Exodus didn't happen the Passover is a farce.

SD

[dadwags]

Angelo,
Are you saying that "reliable, documented Jewish history began at the end of the Babylonian captivity ? Would that include what is called in some places, "Pseudopedegraphia "?

[SoothingDave]

I don't think it's possible to bonefy something to your satisfaction.

As usual, witty, succinct, and spot-on.

SD

[malakhi]

Do you still keep a full 24 hour fast from any food or water?

Yep. By lunchtime yesterday, I was fantasizing about a big plate of spaghetti, with hot toasted garlic bread brushed with olive oil...Mmmmm! Funny thing is, by nighttime, I was no longer hungry.

Funny, my children even kept it with us, and the youngest was 4 or 5 at the time. We always told them that it was up to them if they wanted to keep it, and if they didn't it was perfectly OK, but if they decided to, we expected them to follow through with it, they never failed.

In Jewish practice, children under the age of nine, and women in childbirth or who have just given birth are not permitted to fast. Older children are permitted to fast, but are permitted to break the fast if they feel the need to do so. Any of the restrictions observed on Yom Kippur can be lifted if a threat to life or health is involved.

[dadwags]

Ref;150,#25
Peter the THIRD Bishop of Rome ? Who,pray tell,are one and two? I thought the order was Peter, Linus, Cletus, Check World Almanac for my source . (Is that a real source, Havoc?)

[malakhi]

I have a doctrinal question that basically got me shunned from a supposed protestant church when I dared ask it. I was told that unless I accepted the pastor’s authority and paid tithes to the church I was going to go to hell. Is this a thread where someone can explain apparent contradictions in scripture without condemning me for asking?

No condemnation for asking questions here. Yikes! Frankly, it sounds like this "church" has the trappings of a personality cult. Threatening damnation for failure to tithe strikes me as greedy, self-serving and evil. Dittos for accepting the pastor's authority on threat of hellfire. Of course, there is a place for authority, but we are not meant to become mindless automatons. It is ironic that some protestants willingly submit to a pastor's authority that is exercised in a harsher and more all-encompassing way than is that of the Pope. Consider yourself fortunate to have been "shunned" by this group.

[malakhi]

This thread might be of interest to some here:

Recent Changes @ FreeRepublic

John Robinson discussing recent software changes on the board.

[malakhi]

Actually the very latest scholars are now reconsidering.

Of course some scholars continue to try to find evidence for Matthean priority. Given the nature of the evidence and the difficulty of definitively proving something like this, I suspect this will never be a completely closed question. However, any new attempt to assert Matthean priority faces a steep uphill climb against very strong evidence for Mark.

[trad_anglican]

Once they were lifted out of their cultural setting, and read by gentiles with no experience or context in Judaism, it is not at all remarkable that they would be read and understood differently.

Since the last writings were late first or early second century, then, if this did in fact occur, it couldn't have started before the early to middle part of the second century, correct?

[dadwags]

Thanks for #57,peg.

[JHavard]

Ref Th 150, #17
How do YOU know that Eusebius KNEW that hanan painted the picture and claimed otherwise ?

Go to Catholic Encyclopedia, click "A", and scroll down to "Abgar the Legend of"

It starts this way.

The Legend of Abgar

The historian Eusebius records a tradition (H.E., I, xii), which he himself firmly believes, concerning a correspondence that took place between Our Lord and the local potentate at Edessa. Three documents relate to this correspondence:

*the letter of Abgar to Our Lord;
*Our Lord's answer;
*a picture of Our Lord, painted from life.

I have honestly and with prayer, tried to understand why someone who I am sure was considered a good person in his time, could do some of the things he/they, did in the name of the Church.

My conclusion.

* He convinced himself that through a miracle from Christ it actually happened.

*He told himself, can we know for sure that Christ didn't really do it.

*He planted the seed, and let others harvest it and therefore felt no responsibility for the out come.

*He thought, how could anything so beautiful be wrong if it has good fruits.

*He reasoned, if this brings people closer to Christ, it justifies the means.

If you have other explanations, please enlighten me.

[JohnnyM]

"This will never happen in the Catholic Church, it's already been decided. This only happens in Protestant churches. What will you do if it happens in your church? "

How do you know it will never happen? The crusades happened. The Inquisition happened. Excommunication of God's children happened. I'm giving you a hypothetical situation that is not entirely inconcievable. How bout this. What are your thoughts on the Crusades and the Inquisition? Was the Church right or wrong?

Also, I am not a Protestant. I am not a Catholic. I am a Christian. I do not exclude any from the church of God who is a saved individual. The Bible states that we can only discern children of God through immorality and the testimony of Christ (i.e. there was no resurrection. Christ was not a man. These sorts of things). The rest is up to the Holy Spirit. We must trust the Holy Spirit to discern the rest. The Holy Spirit is in charge. We have no authority to excommunicate or not have fellowship with anyone for any other reason. So if someone has different interpretations or doctrinal beliefs, that is no reason to refuse him from the Church. Some beleive in baptism by sprinkling, some by immersion. This is no reason to start a new denomination. The church's strength is in it's unity, and once a church begins to make distinctions on doctrines and refuse fellowship, then the enemy has won, because we are no longer united.

JM

[malakhi]

This isn't just thinking, this is biblical. To deny this is to deny the bible, which you already do. If it is innaccurate as you say, to be offended would be an over reaction to a fable.

I deny the inspiration of the Christian scriptures, and I disagree with your interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures. This is a far cry from denying the Bible. It is offensive because these sorts of statements contributed to the torture and murder of my people. You are just as dead if you are killed because of a fable.

Let me demonstrate how this works. Jews supposedly rejected, tortured and killed Jesus. Christians believe that Jesus is not just a rejected Messiah, but God himself. So, the Jews killed the Christian God. What could possibly motivate, and what could possibly be an appropriate punishment, for the crime of deicide? They have hardened their hearts and refuse to admit what they know deep inside to be true--that Jesus is messiah and God. The Jews therefore must be evil. Furthermore, they cried out for the crime of killing God be on their hands and on their children. Therefore they deserve whatever punishment can be meted out upon them. In medieval times, it was common for Christians, after hearing the gospel readings on Good Friday condemning the Jews, to pour out of the churches and attack Jewish persons and property.

ANGELO: Question #1: who killed Jesus?

VMATT: Judas, whom the Jewish priests paid, I believe carried the lions share of the responsibility.

Wrong. The Romans executed Jesus. According to Christian theology, are the Jews solely responsible for the death of Jesus? No! If you accept Christian doctrine, then you must accept that YOU are responsible for the death of Jesus. YOUR sins. YOU rejected him, tortured him and killed him. YOU are just as culpable as those who drove the nails through his hands and feet.

But its easier, and less discomfiting, to blame the Jews, isn't it?

ANGELO: Question #2: who recorded the comments supposedly made by the Jewish crowd against Jesus?

VMATT: The gospel writers, eyewitnesses and having access to eye witnesses.

The apostles fled after the arrest of Jesus. They were in no position to be eyewitnesses to most of the subsequent events. That aside, it obviously is Christians who wrote these words. There is no Roman or Jewish records of the events. There is only the Christian side, and there is only a pretense of objectivity. By the time the gospels (and especially John) were written, there was already bad blood between the Jewish and the Christian communities. All we have are the writings of a Christian who said the Jews said these things. If his objective in doing so was to turn sentiment against the Jews, he succeeded beyond his expectations. The consequence was century after century of marginalization, denial of basic civil rights, slander, threats, intimidation, assault, torture, ghettos, pogroms, forced expulsions, murders, property destruction, property seizures, and forced conversions. All, ironically, in the name of the Jew Jesus.

[malakhi]

You might as well ask what I would do if tomorrow the Church announced that this "Jesus thing" was just a lark. "Everyone go back to being Jews."

LOL! Of course, most of you would have to convert, but...we'll leave the light on for you! ;o)

[malakhi]

The Exodus is an important moment in our history, but it is not what defines us. Christianity is defined by the crucifixion and the resurrection. Judaism, at its core, is the Covenant and the Law. Even if you prove that everything prior to the Bablyonian captivity is myth, you are still left with the Law as our understanding of God's will for us.