God is the Foundation of Faith, Not Texts.

[Caladan]

But only for a very little while. Very quickly the religion became uniquely Gentile, so the Hebrew texts took on an entirely different meaning and role for the new Xians.

Lets try to give it a little order.
my premise is that early christians, regarded the OT as scripture. the converts Paul made regarded the OT as scripture as well. Paul tells us in his letter to Timothy that the Scripture were given by inspiration of God.

You're not making sense. Do you mean the NT here? If so, then you're right -- for that's what it does. But we have to remember that the NT was not written or compiled for quite some time following the formation of Xy. And the OT does not refer to Jesus. At all. Any Jew will tell you that.

Yes, that's my typo there. I did mean to say that the NT refers us to the OT, in the prophecy of Isaaiah about Jesus, it also demonstrated to us that Jesus quoted the Psalms, and that the OT stood as a platform for the writers of the NT.
yes, you can say that the NT canon was established by mid fourth century. however as noted above my premise is that the early christians still considered the OT as scripture all during that time. until the major councils canonised the western canon.

 

[rockstarwife628]

I am a fellow Christian, and I feel similarly. I see each holy text as a guide - written to show us how the people at that time understood things like humanity, divinity, life, etc. They are each valuable and full of meaning. But I don't see any as infallible or absolute, or as actually the "Word of God". My faith and understanding of God rests on my own relationship with Him, and while the texts serve wonderfully as windows into how others understood and related to Him (however Divinity is perceived or understood in the various faiths), I believe that even without them we would be able to grasp for truth and meaning and a relationship with Him. I'll explain :

I believe that our very consciousness and humanity points towards truth, that our higher consciousness is more than just a self consciousness, it is also a kind of God consciousness, and that the idea of humanity stems from what it means to be human - the virtues that make up what it means to be humane- which reflect His vary own nature. And it is important to remember that even before The Bible (or other texts) was (were) written people cultivated relationships with the Divine and understood the idea of mankind and humanity. Each text serves as a way to track the development of the understanding of Divinity and humanity throughout time and culture. In the end, though, we are able to find truth by looking within, at our very own humane potential (which I do believe ties in with our consciousness, and the "divine spark" or souls, you could say, in each of us...), and at our personal relationships with God, however we understand Him.

 

[sojourner]

my premise is that early christians, regarded the OT as scripture.

My premise is that the OT texts didn't carry the same meaning or occupy the same position for the Gentiles as they did for the Jews.

yes, you can say that the NT canon was established by mid fourth century. however as noted above my premise is that the early christians still considered the OT as scripture all during that time. until the major councils canonised the western canon.

And there was no NT for them to "base" a uniquely Xian religion upon, which is the point of the thread: The texts are not the foundation of the faith.

 

[waitasec]

My premise is that the OT texts didn't carry the same meaning or occupy the same position for the Gentiles as they did for the Jews.

of course it did... where did they get the idea of a messiah?

And there was no NT for them to "base" a uniquely Xian religion upon, which is the point of the thread: The texts are not the foundation of the faith.

well from what i gather the xians thought the end of days were going to happen within their lifetime...

 

[sojourner]

of course it did... where did they get the idea of a messiah?

That's not what I mean. For the Jews, the texts were valuable as the compendium of the Law. Since the Gentiles were not under the Law, the texts had different value for them.

well from what i gather the xians thought the end of days were going to happen within their lifetime...

what does that have to do with the NT texts, particularly?

 

[no-body]

Sounds good on paper, but saying it doesn't make it true. Like with Muslims claiming not to worship/idolize Mohammed, yet most do and show it in the same breath they say they don't.

It seems inevitable that people want a tangible personality to worship, be it a book or a man to worship as a God because in the end the superficial aspects of religion are to secretly worship the ego by proxy as God and "be right"

 

[waitasec]

That's not what I mean.

it may not be what you mean, but it is the whole point, jesus was everyones messiah...not just for the jews

For the Jews, the texts were valuable as the compendium of the Law. Since the Gentiles were not under the Law, the texts had different value for them.

you mean a double standard?
what i mean is you got gentiles that converted and the proselyte procedure included circumcision, right? so now what do you tell gentiles who want to adopt the jewish messiah as their own without converting to judaism... to circumcise or not? and what do you tell those that did convert and also accepted jesus as the messiah... quite a conundrum if you ask me... especially if ones principles doesn't adhere to double standards.

what does that have to do with the NT texts, particularly?

read acts 2...
peter quotes the prophet joel 2:28-32
17 “‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.

 

[sojourner]

it may not be what you mean, but it is the whole point, jesus was everyones messiah...not just for the jews

But that belief has no bearing on the OT texts, themselves. The OT idea of messiah was a messiah for the Hebrews -- not "everyone." Therefore, for the Gentiles, the texts do take on a different value.

you mean a double standard?
what i mean is you got gentiles that converted and the proselyte procedure included circumcision, right? so now what do you tell gentiles who want to adopt the jewish messiah as their own without converting to judaism... to circumcise or not? and what do you tell those that did convert and also accepted jesus as the messiah... quite a conundrum if you ask me... especially if ones principles doesn't adhere to double standards.

It's not a double-standard. The early church had to come to an understanding that what Jesus was teaching was not "reformed Judaism." Jesus was not the "Jewish Messiah." Jesus was something different. he took the Jewish idea of "messiah" and ran a different direction with it.

read acts 2...
peter quotes the prophet joel 2:28-32
17 “‘In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.

Luke didn't get this idea from scripture, though. That's my point.

 

[waitasec]

But that belief has no bearing on the OT texts, themselves. The OT idea of messiah was a messiah for the Hebrews -- not "everyone." Therefore, for the Gentiles, the texts do take on a different value.

this doesn't make sense. the idea of the messiah belongs to the jewish tradition. since the tradition is being edited for the purpose of creating a new doctrine this appears to be a belief based on belief rather than on a tradition.

It's not a double-standard. The early church had to come to an understanding that what Jesus was teaching was not "reformed Judaism." Jesus was not the "Jewish Messiah." Jesus was something different. he took the Jewish idea of "messiah" and ran a different direction with it.

so why did he supposedly fulfill the jewish prophecies concerning the jewish messiah? it doesn't add up if he was something different.

if jesus was something different, why did jesus have a navel?
in other words, as the supposed ultimate sacrifice god could have just as easily transformed himself as a person without mortal parents and pursued a ministry as a superhuman who's sacrifice would have bridged the gap...

Luke didn't get this idea from scripture, though. That's my point.

paul thought the same thing.
telling xians who were married to abstain from sex because 'the time is short', is a very telling sign that he thought the end will be happening while he was alive on earth...
so with texts that contradict reality...paul died, jesus never returned...that is when i cannot help but see how texts are taken to be truth through faith...the same faith that would predispose one to believe in a god that can be understood through the 'holy bible'

 

[ChristineES]

Sounds good on paper, but saying it doesn't make it true. Like with Muslims claiming not to worship/idolize Mohammad, yet most do and show it in the same breath they say they don't.

It seems inevitable that people want a tangible personality to worship, be it a book or a man to worship as a God because in the end the superficial aspects of religion are to secretly worship the ego by proxy as God and "be right"

I suppose it is good to not always take everything at face value. God, to me, is more than what is written in any of the holy texts of various religions and faiths. A mere man couldn't put God into words- just ideas.
And I think that most of us don't really care whether we are right or not (at least not the only one right)but that we worship God.
But I can say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that I don't worship any books. I may read the books, study the books, try and understand what those books are saying, but in the end I don't worship them. :angel2:

 

[ChristineES]

this doesn't make sense. the idea of the messiah belongs to the jewish tradition. since the tradition is being edited for the purpose of creating a new doctrine this appears to be a belief based on belief rather than on a tradition.




so why did he supposedly fulfill the jewish prophecies concerning the jewish messiah? it doesn't add up if he was something different.

if jesus was something different, why did jesus have a navel?
in other words, as the supposed ultimate sacrifice god could have just as easily transformed himself as a person without mortal parents and pursued a ministry as a superhuman who's sacrifice would have bridged the gap...


paul thought the same thing.
telling xians who were married to abstain from sex because 'the time is short', is a very telling sign that he thought the end will be happening while he was alive on earth...
so with texts that contradict reality...paul died, jesus never returned...that is when i cannot help but see how texts are taken to be truth through faith...the same faith that would predispose one to believe in a god that can be understood through the 'holy bible'

While the 12 Apostles (11, I mean, after Judas) were Jews, kept practicing Judaism even while following Jesus, when Paul spread Jesus to the Gentiles, like to Romans and Greeks, he didn't teach them about Judaism, but about Jesus instead. So they, not being Jews, wouldn't have followed Jewish tradition like Peter and the others.
Modernly, there are Jews, like my mom (who was agnostic until her 40s and I was an adult) who follow Jesus and still call themselves Jews. Even though a Rabbi said that technically, I could be considered Jewish, I never was raised with any religion at all- so I call myself Christian instead.
Peter and the others still kept Jewish law, still followed the traditions, so they were still Jews. Same with Messianic Jews nowadays- they still follow Jewish holidays (like Chanukah and Passover and others) and traditions but also believe that Jesus is the Messiah. (Some Jews don't believe that Messianic Jews are true Jews and I don't agree, but that is a whole other discussion that I don't really want to get into).

 

[sojourner]

this doesn't make sense. the idea of the messiah belongs to the jewish tradition.

That's not entirely true. Most ancient religions have a savior-deity.

since the tradition is being edited for the purpose of creating a new doctrine this appears to be a belief based on belief rather than on a tradition.

And where did the belief come from? Tradition.

so why did he supposedly fulfill the jewish prophecies concerning the jewish messiah?

He didn't -- not completely. That's why the Jews are still waiting.

in other words, as the supposed ultimate sacrifice god could have just as easily transformed himself as a person without mortal parents and pursued a ministry as a superhuman who's sacrifice would have bridged the gap...

That's why I don't subscribe to substitutionary atonement. It wasn't the sacrifice on the cross that was important, so much as it was the sacrifice in forsaking his Divinity to take on humanity. It is specifically by becoming human that God reconciles humanity.

paul thought the same thing.
telling xians who were married to abstain from sex because 'the time is short', is a very telling sign that he thought the end will be happening while he was alive on earth...
so with texts that contradict reality...paul died, jesus never returned...that is when i cannot help but see how texts are taken to be truth through faith...the same faith that would predispose one to believe in a god that can be understood through the 'holy bible'

Not sure texts have "contradicted reality." Perhaps our perception of it, though. Are we sure that God's kingdom is not here, now? Are we certain that Jesus has not returned? I was born in 1960. If Jesus lives in me, how does that not constitute a "return" on his part?

 

[waitasec]

That's not entirely true. Most ancient religions have a savior-deity.

And where did the belief come from? Tradition.

a jewish tradition...yes.

He didn't -- not completely. That's why the Jews are still waiting.

so why did he 'fulfill' prophesy belonging to the jewish tradition?
mark 15:33,34
At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?&#8221.(psalm 22:1)...and things like his genealogy which traces back to king david

That's why I don't subscribe to substitutionary atonement. It wasn't the sacrifice on the cross that was important, so much as it was the sacrifice in forsaking his Divinity to take on humanity. It is specifically by becoming human that God reconciles humanity.

i can still pose the same question.

Not sure texts have "contradicted reality." Perhaps our perception of it, though.

1 cor 7:29

Are we sure that God's kingdom is not here, now? Are we certain that Jesus has not returned? I was born in 1960. If Jesus lives in me, how does that not constitute a "return" on his part?

:thud:....

i'll put it to you like this:

Many Christians believe:
The coming of Christ will be instantaneous and worldwide.[5] "For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be." —Matthew 24:27
The coming of Christ will be visible to all.[6] "Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." —Matthew 24:30
The coming of Christ will be audible.[7] "And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." —Matthew 24:31
The resurrection of the righteous will occur.[8] "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first." —1 Thessalonians 4:16
In one single event, the saved who are alive at Christ's coming will be caught up together with the resurrected to meet the Lord in the air.[9] "Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord." —1 Thessalonians 4:17

Second Coming of Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[sojourner]

so why did he 'fulfill' prophesy belonging to the jewish tradition?

He had to start somewhere. But the trick is, he didn't remain there.

Many Christians believe:
The coming of Christ will be instantaneous and worldwide.[5] "For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be." —Matthew 24:27
The coming of Christ will be visible to all.[6] "Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." —Matthew 24:30
The coming of Christ will be audible.[7] "And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." —Matthew 24:31
The resurrection of the righteous will occur.[8] "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first." —1 Thessalonians 4:16
In one single event, the saved who are alive at Christ's coming will be caught up together with the resurrected to meet the Lord in the air.[9] "Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord." —1 Thessalonians 4:17

It's nice poetry and a pretty vision, but I don't see what it really has to do with the price of tea in China. It's obviously visionary in scope and not literalistic. People are free to believe what they want, but Paul still got the idea from somewhere other than scripture.

 

[waitasec]

He had to start somewhere. But the trick is, he didn't remain there.

in mark he tells his disciples not to go to the gentiles but he came rather for the lost sheep of israel...

It's nice poetry and a pretty vision, but I don't see what it really has to do with the price of tea in China. It's obviously visionary in scope and not literalistic. People are free to believe what they want, but Paul still got the idea from somewhere other than scripture.

paul was jewish...

 

[sojourner]

in mark he tells his disciples not to go to the gentiles but he came rather for the lost sheep of israel...

And in Matthew he tells the disciples to go into all the world. So what?

paul was jewish...

Once again, it had to begin somewhere. But it didn't remain there.

 

[waitasec]

And in Matthew he tells the disciples to go into all the world. So what?

so here one would take matthew version over mark
this doesn't pose a dilemma, a contradiction?
either mark was misguided or matthew was...

Once again, it had to begin somewhere. But it didn't remain there.

what had to begin somewhere, a new tradition that encompasses everyone?
sorry, that doesn't work because of the nature of this particular redemptive process...it would be immoral of me to disown my sense of volition, responsibility and culpability... no one is in the position to take that from me, not even the superhuman figure you call jesus, from my perspective.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Well that certainly is an interesting thing for a Roman Catholic
to say to a Satanist. :flirt:

I was speakng in general, but now that you mention it, it is pretty interesting.

Let's try it this way (just for fun)...

Perhaps it says that despite what YOU think you see, your 'God' and his (Orias') 'God' are the same.

Didn't I say that? Both his and mine are the same. Not because his is really mine to begin with or vice versa. They just are.

 

[sojourner]

so here one would take matthew version over mark
this doesn't pose a dilemma, a contradiction?
either mark was misguided or matthew was...

Nah. Difference is the audience. Mark's audience is rural and Judaic. Matthew's audience is urban and Jewish Xians living in Gentile territory.

what had to begin somewhere, a new tradition that encompasses everyone?
sorry, that doesn't work because of the nature of this particular redemptive process...it would be immoral of me to disown my sense of volition, responsibility and culpability... no one is in the position to take that from me, not even the superhuman figure you call jesus, from my perspective.

What do you believe is that nature?
Why do you feel you'd have to disown your sense of volition, responsibility and culpability?

 

[waitasec]

Nah. Difference is the audience. Mark's audience is rural and Judaic. Matthew's audience is urban and Jewish Xians living in Gentile territory.

i'm seeing double...there is no standard..all things to all men only indicates an unsettling doctrine, because it is constantly adjusting to a biased POV...
and for me, that simply doesn't work...
if that dress is unflattering on me, i want to know, darn it!!!

What do you believe is that nature?
Why do you feel you'd have to disown your sense of volition, responsibility and culpability?

because as a believer, all those things are taken from the individual, whenever that person falls short of the glory simply by asking it to be.