The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles)

AP ^ | 3/24/01

[malakhi]

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

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Previous Thread

[JHavard]

I found this interesting.

John 4:1-40, the story of the Samaritan woman at the well. She had nothing to offer but enthusiasm, and it was that enthusiasm that brought the men of the city out to see who this man was that she claimed was Christ.

Jesus used miracles to prove His divinity to the Jews, and they still didn’t believe Him, but all the Samaritan’s needed to convince them He was the Christ, was His words. V-4

John 4:41 And many more believed because of his own word;

This paragraph stood out, because it sounds like their believing He was the Christ assured their salvation.

The Samaritan’s were originally a mixture of Babylonian and Jew who had given up their Paganism, and formed a belief similar to the Jews, but the Jews wouldn’t recognize them as part of their people.

It says they became believers, and since Jesus had made it clear to the woman that the hour was come when men wouldn’t have to go to the mountains or the city to worship God, these believers must have Christianized their own strange belief, and continued their life in it with Christ as the Messiah, and head of their new belief.

John 4:23-24 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Jesus spent two days teaching them, wouldn’t that have been something to set in on?

JH :)

[Invincibly Ignorant]

You stand behind this hateful nonsense? That Christians today have "no choice" than to deny the Holocaust?

Taken out of context again. He listed some things that resulted from an attitude of supercession. And yes, some Christians deny the holacaust. He didn't say "all" Christians deny the holacaust. I get tired of having to correct you everytime you jump to a false conclusion.

For the record, there is no compelling reason why any Christian would have to deny that Abraham was the spiritual (and actual) father of the Jewish people, that they were given a land to live in and that they served a special purpose in the history of salvation.

Is not the Church the receipient of the promises made to Abraham and the poor Jews who don't believe in Jesus condemned? If this is your belief, you don't believe the literal promises made to Abraham. Hint, they haven't been fulfilled yet.

I've never heard of the crap you post here that is claimed to be what Christians believe, must believe, are compelled to believe.

Nobody in that post claimed to be a Christian.

[CindyDawg]

Interesting. I can't stay here long. Almost x for church. I had to go check on Okie and then I have to get things ready because I'm going to Brownwood tomorrow.
Funny thing owning a horse. I've noticed that I walk on Cindys left side and click at her. I found my self saying "whoa" and "good boy" to the grandbabies and an using " quit" with Eddie :')

[the808bass]

The only thing that makes sense to me is that your argument IMO is an example of reverse logic. If I understand you correctly it is your belief the "conversion" to culture precedes the "conversion" to a particular religion.

Absolutely not. One should not need to convert to any particular culture to become a Christian. That was my point. Yes, culture effects the religion and how it is practiced, as you say. But it is not the religion unless all the religion has is culture (I am not saying here that Judaism is solely culture, only that people who convert to the Judaic culture for the culture's sake have only changed culture and not in reality changed religion). Jesus came in the Jewish culture to save the world and make humans everywhere whole. He did not come to make humans everywhere Jewish.

If I have read him correctly he is stating that the cultural conversion is a precondition to the religious conversion in the two examples, Steven and the Pentecostals, he has given.

No, I am actually saying that cultural conversion can be mistaken for a religious conversion (in the case of Pentecostals in S. America) or can be viewed as necessary for finding God's will (as I interpret Steven's position). I do not agree with this position. I would instead say that "Torah keeping" in Society B might (in fact, most likely "will") end up looking quite different in the 21st century Far East than the "Torah keeping" of Ancient Near Eastern society which will in turn be quite different than "Torah keeping" in 16th century Germany. There are principles which will run unchanged throughout these, and here I am thinking of what C.S. Lewis calls "the Tao" in his short work "The Abolition of Man." But the cultures will change how those unchanged principles are manifest in the society. Hope that makes a little more sense.

[CindyDawg]

Dave, you going to address my 1568 post?

[al_c]

Disclaimer: If you want on or off of this ping list, FReepmail me.

Our covenant was deepened immeasurably when it was signed in the blood of Jesus.

Thursday, April 1, 2004
Lenten Weekday

First Reading: Psalm: Gospel:

Genesis 17:3-9 Psalm 105:4-9 John 8:51-59 During the course of the day, recollect as often as you can that you stand in the presence of God. Consider what He does and what you are doing. You will find His eyes turned towards you and perpetually fixed on you with an incomparable love.  -- St. Francis de Sales

The following is, as usual, from The Word Among Us:

When God changed Abram's name to Abraham--from "a high father" to the "father of many nations"--he did far more than alter the way this man of faith should be called. He made it clear that he was giving Abraham a new identity and a new role in history. And he ratified that role by entering into a covenant with him.

This was not the first time God made a covenant. Instead, this was a deepening of two previous covenants he had made with his people. According to Scripture, the very first covenant stretches back to the beginning of the world, when he blessed Adam and invited him to join in his creative work by being fruitful, ruling over the earth, and resting on the seventh day (Genesis 1:28–2:3).

Later, when he made a covenant with Noah, God deepened his relationship with us in two important ways. First, he made provision for our sin by saying that we would bear responsibility for our transgressions. Second, he promised--out of the depth of his love and mercy--never to exact the complete punishment our sins deserved by destroying the world (Genesis 9:1-17).

Now, in his covenant with Abraham, God deepened his relationship with us yet again. This time, he focused his covenant on the formation of a specific people who would live exclusively for the purposes of God. This special people--the children of Abraham--would be given the privilege of knowing him, praising him, and serving him with their lives.

Today, we are heirs of the covenants God made with Adam, Noah, and Abraham. Like them, we too are called to be set apart and made holy for the Lord's purposes. And even better, our covenant was deepened immeasurably when it was signed in the blood of Jesus, the Son of God. Just as he said to our ancestors in faith, God wants to tell us that he is with us and wants to pour out his grace upon us. In response to so great a promise, let's give God our thanks and worship. He, the Lord of all creation, has covenanted himself to us!

"Thank you, Lord, for your covenant. Thank you for such undeserved love and mercy! Come, Lord, and give us the grace to embrace this covenant with you and live as your holy people."

----------

God bless.

AC

[SoothingDave]

Dave, you going to address my 1568 post?

I didn't really see any point. If someone is going to believe, regardless of what he is told, that the Catholics are merely biding their time until we can start religious oppression and torture again, then no amount of a particular Catholic assuring him that he would be "safe" with him is going to matter.

For the record, and it's a shame that it has come to this, I would not throw any of you to the Inquisition for your "crimes" of heterodoxy. I think all decent people like to think that we would hide some Jews in our attic. I am among them.

SD

[SoothingDave]

It says they became believers, and since Jesus had made it clear to the woman that the hour was come when men wouldn’t have to go to the mountains or the city to worship God, these believers must have Christianized their own strange belief, and continued their life in it with Christ as the Messiah, and head of their new belief.

Jesus did not tell the Samaritan woman that she and her people would have to go to Jerusalem and participate in the sacrifices there. I think this is a very good example of how Christ came to all cultures.

SD

[SoothingDave]

the Church is still entirely dependent on it today, with no choice but to deny Jewish history - from Jews being the true and spiritual children of Avraham, to the history of Yisrael and Yehudah (as opposed to "Palestine"), and even the Holocaust.

You stand behind this hateful nonsense? That Christians today have "no choice" than to deny the Holocaust?

Taken out of context again. He listed some things that resulted from an attitude of supercession. And yes, some Christians deny the holacaust. He didn't say "all" Christians deny the holacaust. I get tired of having to correct you everytime you jump to a false conclusion.

And I get tired of dealing with people who can't read. He clearly says the Church (that's the Christian people)has "no choice" but to deny the Holocaust. You can either accept it, or apologize for it. But don't try to pretend it doesn't say what it says.

I've never heard of the crap you post here that is claimed to be what Christians believe, must believe, are compelled to believe.

Nobody in that post claimed to be a Christian.

It's really sad. Truly. Your guru tells us what the Church (again, that's Christian people) has "no choice" in believing. It doesn't matter if the author, your guru, claimed to be a Christian. Talk about a foolish response.

SD

[malakhi]

There is not any one culture which must be adopted.

So someone who converts to Catholicism doesn't have to participate in any holidays or religious activities? A hypothetical Muslim convert could continue to observe Ramadan and go on the Haj? Just as long as he accepts the theological doctrines of Catholicism?

[RobbyS]

Is no one here going to look at the unique historical situation that produced the Inquisition and conclude that it is about as likely to recur as African slavery? Kamen wored hard to correct the sterotypes, but apparently no one reads his book or understands that contary to Black legend few Protestants in Spain suffered from it and relatively few in the Netherlands. It was aimed primarily at converted Jews families by "old" Christians with a perverted concern for racial purity.

[SoothingDave]

The question is what is a religious obligation and what is cultural? The orthodox Jewish view is that the entirety of the Law given at Sinai is a religious obligation. The orthodox Christian view is that the Spirit may guide us and every jot and tittle of the Law is not binding upon us.

A Christian who tries to follow the Law is making a cultural decision, to avoid certain foods and practice certain practices that the whole of Christianity is not in agreement with.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Is no one here going to look at the unique historical situation that produced the Inquisition and conclude that it is about as likely to recur as African slavery?

Why would they do that? It might damage their sense of superiority.

SD

[malakhi]

The orthodox Christian view is that the Spirit may guide us and every jot and tittle of the Law is not binding upon us.

Maybe not every jot and tittle of the Torah, but what about every jot and tittle penned by canon lawyers and the magisterium? Would it be unfair to say you reject the "binding" of the Torah, but accept the "binding" of the church?

A Christian who tries to follow the Law is making a cultural decision, to avoid certain foods and practice certain practices

Why do you assume that these are cultural practices? In Judaism, keeping kosher is as much a religious practice as is a Catholic taking communion.

[RobbyS]

Sort of like in Wilheline Germany. Thousands of Jews decided to accept baptism. Like the 'liberated' Jews in Wilimine Germany who decided to be assimilated into that society, they were a threat to the old aristocracy who questioned their motives and
sought to suppress a class of potential rivals. It also had to do with the final extinction of Muslim Spain and the supposed links between the Jewish commmunity and the Moors. So not only did the Jewish Christians get suppressed, the remaining relgious Jews were thrown out of the country, those that did not convert to Christianity. THAT, of course, led to a new round of witchhunting. The irony is, that according to Kamen, the Jewish Christians had been more or less treated as dead by their Jewish relatives and that the many accusations of "judaizing" made against the Jewish Christians have been shown to be fabrications. Sort of like the Nazi kies about German Jews. German Jews were, by and large more zealous German patriots than their Chirstian neighbors. So Spanish Jews who became Christians generally went to whole nine-yards. No good deed goes unpunished.

[SoothingDave]

Would it be unfair to say you reject the "binding" of the Torah, but accept the "binding" of the church?

It would be absolutely correct.

Why do you assume that these are cultural practices? In Judaism, keeping kosher is as much a religious practice as is a Catholic taking communion.

In Judaism. That's the key phrase. I don't doubt that it is a religious practice for the Jew. I am saying that it is a cultural decision for the Christian.

SD

[RobbyS]

It does mattterwhat the intention of the person is, does it not? A Christian keeping kosher does not place the same significance on the practice as does an observant Jew, as a Baptist does not place the same significance on Communions as a Catholic. Not that any parallels are exact(many Baptists approach the Lord's Suppper with great fervor), but in general keeping Kosher would be an act of national as opposed to religious piety.

[malakhi]

Would it be unfair to say you reject the "binding" of the Torah, but accept the "binding" of the church?

It would be absolutely correct.

You probably can understand, then, why those who do not accept the binding of the church will tend to revert in various degrees to the binding of God's commandments as expressed in scripture.

I am saying that it is a cultural decision for the Christian.

Perhaps for most Christians it would be. There are those who do view Torah observance as a religious obligation, though.

[SoothingDave]

You probably can understand, then, why those who do not accept the binding of the church will tend to revert in various degrees to the binding of God's commandments as expressed in scripture.

Sure. But the understanding of such is altered by the New Testament.

There are those who do view Torah observance as a religious obligation, though.

Only by rejecting parts of the Christian Scriptures. It's a murky middle ground.

SD

[malakhi]

It does mattterwhat the intention of the person is, does it not? A Christian keeping kosher does not place the same significance on the practice as does an observant Jew

I agree with your first sentence, which is why I don't think you can generalize as you do in the second. Some Christians do take this observance seriously.

but in general keeping Kosher would be an act of national as opposed to religious piety.

Are you referring here to Jews? Or to kosher-keeping Christians?