God is the Foundation of Faith, Not Texts.

[Otherright]

I agree. My faith is what guides my path. There is wisdom found in many things. Sometimes, it isn't the teacher, but the lesson.

 

[sojourner]

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!!!

I've gotten lost in the give-and-take snippets. What are you talking about here?

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.

volition, responsibility and culpability are taken away from the individual as a believer? How do figure?

 

[Orias]

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

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.

I don't know if I can necessarily agree with this, unless of course you could take "God" for what it is without all of that silly mumbo jumbo behind it.

 

[LittleSidhe]

Agree with the OP, though I'm not Christian nor do I follow the Bible.

 

[waitasec]

I've gotten lost in the give-and-take snippets. What are you talking about here?

truth is truth...

volition, responsibility and culpability are taken away from the individual as a believer? How do figure?

hebrews 9:22

In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

 

[sojourner]

truth is truth...

Well, duh!

In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

...and this would have ... what, exactly, to do with Christianity, do you think?

 

[Caladan]

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.

The early Christians began their first steps as a Jewish sect of the first century, they were of course joined by converts. this early sect collectively held the Hebrew Bible of Judaism as scripture.
This is a general scholarly premise, and there is no shame for scholars to say it is attested both by early Christian texts and by the New Testament.
you say that the NT did not officially exist for them to base their faith on, however that is simply uprooting the first three centuries of the Christian faith.
the New Testament, gives us an insight into the opinions, ideas, and beliefs of early Christians. the philosophy, the acts, the understanding, and the beliefs of early Christians culminated in the creation of the New Testament.The New Testament clearly demonstrates, that that the early Christians saw Jesus as growing out of the Hebrew Bible and out of Judaism. in the promise of Jeremiah as fulfilled and embodied in Jesus, and that the early Christians, the earliest of Christians more notably, as the New Testament scholar N. T. Wright tells us, were searching the Hebrew scripture in order to understand the physical life of Jesus.

Your premise. that the so called gentiles did not have a text. means that these gentile believers stood on the shoulders of men who did have an understanding of the Scripture, and supposedly made sure that their converts knew exactly what to say when Paul was coming to test the congregation.
this was a very eschagological time. the believers had to base their doctrine and faith on a well founded ground. on authentic scripture. where did they get their beliefs in this eschatological era? obviously it was from the Hebrew Scripture and the belief in the coming messiah, and from earlier Jewish sects. the early Christian sect was not isolated in its beliefs from earlier Judaic sects, and was not isolated from the greater body of scripture these sects adhered to.
these converts sure did not believe in the Venus of Willendorf. they believed that Jesus of Nazareth, who was preaching in Jerusalem and in Nazareth is the promised messiah. where did they get faith in this man from? which scripture did they base their faith that this man is indeed the promised messiah?
this was an organised community, they had texts and scripture to refer to, texts written by them, and the Hebrew Scripture.
it is not a mystery that the church fathers included the OT and the NT in the official canon. the idea did not simply dawn three or four centuries later on the church fathers.
there is a line of doctrine that the main councils had to work with. this or these doctrines were developed by the congregations of the earliest Christians, they also had a platform to work on, the Scripture. the Scripture all other sects worked with.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Some people have said they believe that the Bible is the foundation of Christian beliefs. After thinking this over for a few days, I have decided to respond this way: The Bible is a guide book for my path, but it is not the foundation of my faith. The foundation of my faith is God.

Do any other faiths feel the same way about God and their various religious texts?

Why, yes. But I have found, someone try to thump a Bible this way and get thumped; they are trying to tell me something the picked up from the church and/or the minister, rather than trusting in Spirit to illuminate Word.

 

[waitasec]

Well, duh!

explain to me what different audiences means?

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

it's not like one is listening to pat methany and hears speed metal...
that is what you are essentially saying, there were different audiences but 1 person who was depicted with the absence of consistency...instead he was portrayed with a contrast...truth is truth.

...and this would have ... what, exactly, to do with Christianity, do you think?

it is their saving grace...

 

[sojourner]

The early Christians began their first steps as a Jewish sect of the first century, they were of course joined by converts. this early sect collectively held the Hebrew Bible of Judaism as scripture.
This is a general scholarly premise, and there is no shame for scholars to say it is attested both by early Christian texts and by the New Testament.
you say that the NT did not officially exist for them to base their faith on, however that is simply uprooting the first three centuries of the Christian faith.
the New Testament, gives us an insight into the opinions, ideas, and beliefs of early Christians. the philosophy, the acts, the understanding, and the beliefs of early Christians culminated in the creation of the New Testament. there is no way around it.
The New Testament clearly demonstrates, that that the early Christians saw Jesus growing out of the Hebrew Bible and out of Judaism. in the promise of Jeremiah as fulfilled and embodied in Jesus, and that the early Christians, the earliest of Christians more notably, as the New Testament scholar N. T. Wright tells us, were searching the Hebrew scripture in order to understand the physical life of Jesus.

Your premise. that the so called gentiles did not have a text. means that these gentile believers stood on the shoulders of men who did have an understanding of the Scripture, and supposedly made sure that their converts knew exactly what to say when Paul was coming to test the congregation.
this was a very eschagological time. the believers had to base their doctrine and faith on a well founded ground. on authentic scripture. where did they get their beliefs in this eschatological era? obviously it was from the Hebrew Scripture and the belief in the coming messiah, and from earlier Jewish sects. the early Christian sect was not isolated in its beliefs from earlier Judaic sects, and was not isolated from the greater body of scripture these sects adhered to.
these converts sure did not believe in the Venus of Willendorf. they believed that one Jesus of Nazareth, who was preaching in Jerusalem and in Nazareth is the promised messiah. where did they get faith in this man from? which scripture did they base their faith that this man is indeed the promised messiah?
this was an organised community, they had texts and scripture to refer to, both texts written by them, and the Hebrew Scripture.
it is not a mystery that the church fathers included the OT and the NT in the official canon that we all know. the idea did not simply dawn three or four centuries later on the church fathers.
there is a line of doctrine that the main councils had to work with. this or these doctrines were developed by the congregations of the earliest Christians, they also had a platform to work on, the Scripture. the Scripture all other sects worked with.

That sounds real nice and all, but you're forgetting that the texts were only a very small part of the transmitted faith. Since these people were overwhelmingly illiterate, they relied more on tradition than on the scriptures themselves. the early Xian community was built more on testimony and the example of agape than on text.

 

[sojourner]

explain to me what different audiences means?

Different audiences display different points of view and demand that the faith be mulivalent -- which it is. In this case, "truth" embodies a very wide avenue, with multiple lanes.

it's not like one is listening to pat methany and hears speed metal...
that is what you are essentially saying, there were different audiences but 1 person who was depicted with the absence of consistency...instead he was portrayed with a contrast...truth is truth.

But it's how that person is depicted. To quote Alfred Burt, "Some children see him lily white, the baby Jesus born this night ... some children see him bronzed and brown, the Lord of heaven to earth come down..."
Jesus is Jesus, but jesus was presented in different ways, with emphasis on different aspects of how he embodied the new faith.

it is their saving grace...

No it isn't. That's one way of looking at it, but many, many Xians don't subscribe to that doctrine.

 

[Cain]

Some people have said they believe that the Bible is the foundation of Christian beliefs. After thinking this over for a few days, I have decided to respond this way: The Bible is a guide book for my path, but it is not the foundation of my faith. The foundation of my faith is God.

Do any other faiths feel the same way about God and their various religious texts?

any other 'Faiths'? I guess that includes me?

The Christian religion is not about these silly rules and regulations, not about Sin, it is not about guilt and persecution, not about salvation . . . all those things are what Man have attached to this Belief System.

This Judeo-Christian bible (there are others you know?) is simply a love letter. It's about Love.

Yeshua the Nazarene is One of a several Lucifers manifest in this material World.

 

[Caladan]

That sounds real nice and all, but you're forgetting that the texts were only a very small part of the transmitted faith. Since these people were overwhelmingly illiterate, they relied more on tradition than on the scriptures themselves. the early Xian community was built more on testimony and the example of agape than on text.

Well my post might sound nice. but your post sounds a bit romantic. a sect which has won converts all the way from Antioch in Syria to Galatia in North Central Anatolia by the display of love and exemplary behavior?
these men and women, these new converts must have had some concept as to the new faith they are converting to, they must have had some concept of what the Judaic communities that lived in Syria and Anatolia adhere to, a basic idea of their beliefs.
just as they had some concept of the Hellenic beliefs that were part of their environment.
once converted into the faith, they must have been studying the Hebrew Scripture with their congregations. and as the official Christian canons show us, they had to adhere to the Hebrew Bible as the base of their faith.

 

[sojourner]

Well my post might sound nice. but your post sounds a bit romantic. a sect which has won converts all the way from Antioch in Syria to Galatia in North Central Anatolia by the display of love and exemplary behavior?

Yep. Studies show that converts are made, by-and-large from folks with whom we are well-acquainted. Xy is personalized religion, because it really is about relationship.

these men and women, these new converts must have had some concept as to the new faith they are converting to, they must have had some concept of what the Judaic communities that lived in Syria and Anatolia adhere to, a basic idea of their beliefs.

Yes, they did. It was modeled for them by the folks they knew. And it's well-documented that most Gentiles took the Xian faith and molded it to their own cultural expression (hence, the argument that Gentile converts didn't have to be circumcised).

once converted into the faith, they must have been studying the Hebrew Scripture with their congregations.

that's the point: Once they were converted. Their coming to conversion was informed by means other than reading texts. And, once again, even after conversion, they most likely were informed by oral recitation of story and not by reading text, since most of them would have been illiterate.

and as the official Christian canons show us, they had to adhere to the Hebrew Bible as the base of their faith.

Hmmm... I thought the NT points out that Jesus is the ground of our faith...

 

[Caladan]

Hi sojourner. Its possible that I wont be answering the debate in the next three days. since I'll be vacating.

Yep. Studies show that converts are made, by-and-large from folks with whom we are well-acquainted. Xy is personalized religion, because it really is about relationship.

This argument can only go that far. as Paul, and the Apostels movement debated the heathens, and were preaching the good news. these men had a clear system of beliefs, and they preached it among Hellenic societies and crowds.

that's the point: Once they were converted. Their coming to conversion was informed by means other than reading texts. And, once again, even after conversion, they most likely were informed by oral recitation of story and not by reading text, since most of them would have been illiterate.

The discussion about which of the disciples, of course later to become the apostles were illiterate also exists. it doesn't take from the fact that these men also grew up on the moral fiber of the OT by oral tradition, nor does it take from the fact that this gave them a platform to preach from.
attested to the importance of the OT, even more than that, its central role as scripture, scripture, as it was not yet redefined as the OT in the lack of the existence of the NT canon, are the events concerning Marcion in 144 AD.
Marcion, by Gnostic influence excluded the Hebrew Scripture of Judaism from the early Christian texts. the result of course was that he was deemed a heretic.
this is mid second century. par excellence what you would call early Christianity. Marcion is declared a heretic for exlcuding the OT from the teachings of early Christianity.

Hmmm... I thought the NT points out that Jesus is the ground of our faith...

What Jesus is documented saying in the NT is food for thought:

"All things must be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me."

Luke 24:44

 

[Many Sages One Truth]

Some people have said they believe that the Bible is the foundation of Christian beliefs. After thinking this over for a few days, I have decided to respond this way: The Bible is a guide book for my path, but it is not the foundation of my faith. The foundation of my faith is God.

Do any other faiths feel the same way about God and their various religious texts?

Greetings, Sister Christine

Yes I agree with you. Books can only be the word of God in a very limited sense, in that they are the products of their time and culture. The best and most true word of God is our experiences with God.

Namaste

 

[waitasec]

Different audiences display different points of view and demand that the faith be mulivalent -- which it is. In this case, "truth" embodies a very wide avenue, with multiple lanes.

so when it comes to disease, earthquakes, tsunamis, these subjected to what exactly...empirical scientific truths or statements of faith...
spiritual truths based on absence of rationality and logic doesn't work.
it's adhering to double standards.

But it's how that person is depicted.

To quote Alfred Burt, "Some children see him lily white, the baby Jesus born this night ... some children see him bronzed and brown, the Lord of heaven to earth come down..."
Jesus is Jesus, but jesus was presented in different ways, with emphasis on different aspects of how he embodied the new faith.

yes but the core identity of real person doesn't change...if they are indeed real, however if we are talking about a chameleon type of character then where is the standard for spiritual truth? hence the reason there are so many different interpretations.

No it isn't. That's one way of looking at it, but many, many Xians don't subscribe to that doctrine.

still doesn't deter from the fact that a lot do...

 

[waitasec]

bump...

 

[Straw Dog]

Some people have said they believe that the Bible is the foundation of Christian beliefs. After thinking this over for a few days, I have decided to respond this way: The Bible is a guide book for my path, but it is not the foundation of my faith. The foundation of my faith is God.

Do any other faiths feel the same way about God and their various religious texts?

Where would your particular faith emerge if not through the texts that codify it?

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Scripture is an invaluable part of receiving the faith----but nonetheless the faith is received. It is not merely read. The fact of Scripture's necessity reminds us of God's will that human mediation be a necessity in the transmission of faith. Before there was Scripture, there were the events, experience and reflections that would one day become Scripture.

And still, so, in some reflection, today. Whoever first learned of God directly from a text? No. You learn from your mother, your father, your teachers, your grandmother, your priest, your rituals, your prayers. And not at all just in words, but in deeds and responses to life as it unfolds. This is why I would say that no text has absolute primacy. It has always been contextualized in experience.