captainalias
Dedicated LVC Member
Perhaps the title of this thread should be, "Who Would Jesus Bomb/Invade"?
/tongue in cheek of course.
/tongue in cheek of course.
Jesus a pacifist?
- Thread starter raVeneyes
- Start date
mespock
Marxists - Socialists
raVeneyes said:
Funny about how many different types of Christian faith are out there..
Many claiming that their's is the right one....
mespock
Marxists - Socialists
barry2952 said:
Good Questions Barry....
When I went to a very fundamental elementary school the teachers and pastor told me that the Old Testament was a mirror and a curb.. One to show one their sins and a curb to guide you...
I was also told that it was impossible for man to follow the law that we would make mistakes, therefore the need of the Messiah. Faith in the Messiah would lead you to salvation.
Later in a Liberal Art College (Carthage College) where I did my undergrad studies we were required to take 2 religion classes. In one of my classes the issue about Old Testament laws (not just the 10 commandments) and their time period were discussed. About this the professor explained that many of the laws in the Bible were set for society of the times. One example he gave was when Paul talks about women preaching in the synagogues, that it was not to be allowed, at that time period it would have fit society, today it doesn't.
What about Masturbation? In the old testament
Genesis 38:8-10 (8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also.)
I think a lot of people will be damned! What about all of those poor teens..
It is verses like this that some use to condemn others.
I find the Jewish dietary laws to be most interesting.
No meat from an animal of cloven hoof. The reason that pork is banned in both Judiasm and Islam is that they very early on observed that one who ate pork often got sick. Their observations, not science or divine intervention created a need for this dietary law.
The laws about having two sets of dishes is ludicrous, IMHO, in this day and age. This law says that one set of dishes is for meat and one for milk dishes. Think about it. The average Jew didn't have porcelain or even pottery dishes as they were heavy and a burden to take with in ones wanderings. Wood was the preferred implement both in dishes and utensils. Wood is porous and retains part of the previous meal. Mixing meat and milk dishes is deadly in an unsanitized environment. More observation-based laws. No divine intervention here.
The list goes on and on. That's what made me an agnostic. I lack the faith to believe the written word. It has been modified and translated so many times that it has lost all meaning, in my opinion. It is exactly like that party game where you whisper a sentence in the person's ear and it comes out the other end as something completely different.
I have to make the observation that there are so many different Christian subdivisions, you all can't be right.
No meat from an animal of cloven hoof. The reason that pork is banned in both Judiasm and Islam is that they very early on observed that one who ate pork often got sick. Their observations, not science or divine intervention created a need for this dietary law.
The laws about having two sets of dishes is ludicrous, IMHO, in this day and age. This law says that one set of dishes is for meat and one for milk dishes. Think about it. The average Jew didn't have porcelain or even pottery dishes as they were heavy and a burden to take with in ones wanderings. Wood was the preferred implement both in dishes and utensils. Wood is porous and retains part of the previous meal. Mixing meat and milk dishes is deadly in an unsanitized environment. More observation-based laws. No divine intervention here.
The list goes on and on. That's what made me an agnostic. I lack the faith to believe the written word. It has been modified and translated so many times that it has lost all meaning, in my opinion. It is exactly like that party game where you whisper a sentence in the person's ear and it comes out the other end as something completely different.
I have to make the observation that there are so many different Christian subdivisions, you all can't be right.
captainalias
Dedicated LVC Member
barry2952 said:
Now you're getting into the area of textual criticism and reliability. I did some research on this area, so this might help.
You want to consider this outline:
1) Establish the Bible, and more specifically, the Gospels, as reliable historical documents.
2) Examine the secular history and archaeological evidence of Jesus Christ.
3) Examine evidence for resurrection inside and outside the Bible.
4) If the Gospels are reliable and Christ and the resurrection are real, then we can conclude that it is reasonable to put our faith in Christ.
5) Examine miscellaneous questions, i.e. canonicity and apocryphal books.
Reliability of the NT:
Consider amount of source material (and there are some 24,000 manuscripts still in existence), earliest extant manuscript date (The earliest copy is papyrus #52 (P52), also known as the John Rylands Papyrus, which contains a fragment of the Gospel of John, with five verses from Chapter 18. Compared to the secular texts, the Rylands manuscript is an amazing find that puts the earliest extant microscope within one century of the original time of publication.), transmission errors (these do not alter the basic meaning), historical accuracy and consistency of the NT, extra-biblical references to christ, and consider how canon was established in the NT.
If you sift through the information (and I encourage you to do so if you're interested), you can establish the following: Christ was a real historical figure and the Bible is the most reliable (according to secular standards) piece of ancient literature. Whether you want to follow Christ of course, is a leap of faith.
Please, I never doubted the existance of Christ. I just don't understand how all of the divisions of Christianity can all be right.
Christ was a Rabbi. He was a great teacher. We'all doubters just have trouble wrapping our arms around Christ being the Messiah.
Kind of a cute rhyme I picked up in military school.
"Roses are reddish, violets are blueish,
If it wasn't for Jesus, we'd all be Jewish"
Christ was a Rabbi. He was a great teacher. We'all doubters just have trouble wrapping our arms around Christ being the Messiah.
Kind of a cute rhyme I picked up in military school.
"Roses are reddish, violets are blueish,
If it wasn't for Jesus, we'd all be Jewish"
captainalias
Dedicated LVC Member
barry2952 said:
I think most of the divisions of Christianity do believe in the same central tenet, that salvation is through faith in Christ, which is the most important. They largely differ on other practices.
No doubt believing in a messiah requires faith.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
barry2952 said:
Barry, I understand where you're coming from. I've discussed this before at length. The problem with that theory, and believe me, I've heard it a thousand times, is that it just isn't possible for Jesus to have been JUST a great teacher or even a prophet. The fact is, Jesus was either one of three things:
1. Liar
2. Lunatic
3. Messiah, God
You see, Jesus CLAIMED to be the Messiah. He said to the Sanhedrin before he was led away to be tortured, "Before Abraham was, I am." He blatantly claimed to be God on several occasions. In fact, that's the reason the Jews conspired to kill him.
Now, let's take this a step further. If a human being claimed to be God and was lying, then certainly he would have recanted his lies at the point of torture or death. (This very point, by the way, discredits the Teacher/Prophet theory, because His status wouldn't stand up if He was borne out to be a liar.) Yet Jesus didn't do that. He said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
Now, you might say, 'Well, you'd have to be crazy not to recant lies at the point of torture or death, but you could do it' and you'd be right. But that would make Jesus a lunatic. Only a lunatic would walk into a town, say "I'm God," and then maintain it even to the point of being executed for blasphemy. The only other possibility is that Jesus is, in fact, God, and was telling the truth, for which He was executed.
So let's recap:
Jesus couldn't have been just a great teacher or prophet, because that would have been discredited by Him being either a liar or a lunatic, either way. He had to be one of three things:
1. Liar
2. Lunatic
3. Messiah, God
You choose which one to believe.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
barry2952 said:
Thanks barry. You're not so bad yourself.:Beer
fossten said:
Isn't there a possibility that there was a fourth, more human, possibility.
Many throughout history have been saviours. They have taken many forms but their goal is unity under their tutilage. I don't believe that Jesus would have to be liar or lunatic to accomplish what he did. Nor do I believe that he would have to actually be the Messiah to form the unity that he did.
The problem may be that I don't get miracles. So much of Christianity seems to be based on miracles. To me a miracle is simply a story that is told too many times. Do you believe that the image of Mary in the wood veneer of a sliding door in a guy's bedroom is a miracle? He said it was. Is it a miracle to see Jesus' image in the water and resulting calcium deposit seeping out under a bridge? Have any of you truly experienced a miracle? I haven't, so I have nothing to compare it to.
The major miracle in Judiasm is the oil that lasted for 8 days after the destruction of the Temple. Mythbusters would have a field day with this one. Tell me someone wasn't topping off the tank while no one was looking.
It's like that story of the guy coming to work bragging about the 35 mpg he was getting on his VW. His coworkers were so sick of listening to him that each day they added a little gas to his tank. He started getting 50 then 75 then 100 miles to the gallon. He thought it was a miracle, at least until they started taking gas out of his car each day until he was only getting 10 mpg. That's actually a true story. My point is that I don't believe that miracles exist. Some people do.
If there were miracles, wouldn't more church busses be save from falling off mountains? Aren't those people more deserving of a miracle than others?
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
barry2952 said:
Miracles existed in a time when strange weather patterns were thought to be divine in nature (lighting strikes a hut, God is angry!), luckily for humanity the forward movement of science is explaining the world around us and dispelling mysticism. Remember, most of the population at one point was convinced to 100% certainty that the world was flat.